
Book - '^^f j 
GoipghtN" 

COFYRIGHT DEPOSITS 



THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT 



THE PEOPLE'S 
GOVERNMENT 



BY 

DR. J. M. RICE 

EDITOR OF THE FORUM 1897-1907 

Author of '*The Public School System of the United 

States," "The Rational Spelling Book," 

"Scientific Management in 

Education," etc. 



THE JOHN C. WINSTON COMPANY 

PHILADELPHIA 

1915 



i^_ 






Copyright, 1915, by 
J. M. RICE 




VAfL-BALLOU COMPANY 

eiNGHAMTON AND NEW YORK 



©CI.A416415 
NOV 18 1915 






CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I. The Idea i 

II. The Economic and Moral Significance 

OF Unnecessary Waste 9 

III. Some Needed Readjustments in Our 

Conceptions of Terms 46 

IV. Practicality and Efficiency .... 77 

V. Rational versus Irrational Leadership 95 

VI. Rational Leadership and Reciprocal Su- 
pervision 120 

VII. The Efficiency Court and the Bosses: 

A Practical Working Proposition . . 136 



THE 
PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT 

CHAPTER I 

THE IDEA 

While it was my original intention to place 
before the reader within the limits of a small 
volume a clear and convincing explanation of a 
very elementary idea, I found after repeated at- 
tempts that such a task was. beyond me, so that I 
was gradually led to see that I should be obliged 
to make a sacrifice in one of two directions. OThat 
is, I found that it would be necessary for me 
either to abandon the notion of making the vol- 
ume brief or the idea as clear as I had wished. 
I finally decided in favor of brevity; and if I am 
mistaken as to clearness, I shall, of course, be 
much gratified. 

As for the idea Itself, this may be expressed in 
a phrase of five words, although it presumes no 
less than to indicate how a democratic government 
could be founded on a basis of truth and justice 

I 



THE people's government 

not only with the people as we find them to-day, 
but also in the main with our system as it is organ- 
ized to-day. In regard to the fundamentals no 
change would be required except that of supplying 
what might be termed a missing link, a factor in- 
tended to serve the purpose of compelling the 
crooked to steer a straight course. As I see it, 
our ship of state is in need of a rudder. This 
is not intended to imply that I am the first to 
recognize the need of such a thing as a steering 
gear; but it does intend to imply that the ap- 
paratus as originally devised for that purpose has 
failed to do what was expected of it. The matter 
to which I refer is that of maintaining a proper 
system of checks and balances through the divi- 
sion into three departments of government. Of 
course I am aware that one who expresses an opin- 
ion of this nature is liable to be termed a heretic. 
However, as I am going to plead in my d'efense 
that I am not an advocate of boss-rule, which I 
regard as a direct result of a flaw in our system, 
my heresy is at least based on a worthy motive. 

In respect to the flaw% this does not lie in the 
three-fold division, which I should not think of 
disturbing if I could, but in an error in the form 
of the separation. As things have heretofore 
been, the chief executives have been regarded as 

2 



THE IDEA 

the legitimate heads of the executive departments, 
while their functions have been for the most part 
performed on the legislative side. That is, the 
term chief executive has been to my mind mislead- 
ing, because the official who occupies that position, 
whether the President, a governor, or a mayor, 
has considerably more power in legislative than 
he has in executive matters. Thus, although on 
the executive side he has in large measure the 
power to appoint the individual department 
heads, the latter officials are nevertheless so 
placed that they are not under any immediate 
obligation to give his views precedence over their 
own. Morally, he may be in control, but offi- 
cially he has no power to interfere with them un- 
less he finds they are doing wrong. In legisla- 
tive affairs, on the other hand, his powers are not 
confined to moral suasion, for here they are not 
only actual, but enormous ; the veto power of the 
President, for example, being equivalent to no 
less than one-fourth of the total number of Con- 
gressional votes on the negative side. As a re- 
sult he is practically in control of the legislative 
and at the same time morally In control of the 
executive department, and therefore plays a role 
which appears to me to be contrary to the spirit 
of popular government. 

3 



THE people's government 

For example, if for the sake of argument we as- 
sume the total membership of Congress to be 451, 
there would be required under a majority rule 226 
affirmative votes to carry a measure, while under 
the two-thirds rule resulting from the veto it would 
require 301 to carry it; thus changing the figures 
from 226 as against 225 to 301 as against 150. 
This means that a negative vote of 151 against an 
affirmative vote of 300 would be a negative vic- 
tory; for the President would have the power to 
add to the 151 his own quota of 150, making the 
count 301 against 300. Or, looking at the mat- 
ter In a different way, he has a vote for every 
negative one, which Is equivalent to the power of 
doubling the total number of negative votes. As 
for the one-fourth above mentioned, this Is based 
on the Idea of a total of 601, the President's 150 
being Included. 

As the President Is not entitled to cast a single 
affirmative vote, he naturally has no direct power 
to force Congress to pass measures that he de- 
sires to put through. But Indirectly he has the 
power to shape measures to his liking by means of 
the club of 150 negative votes which he may hold 
over the heads of the members of Congress who 
refuse to fall in line. Whether or not the Presi- 
dent should have such power Is a question upon 

4 



THE IDEA 

which opinions may legitimately differ. It only 
appears ridiculous to me that under these circum- 
stances we should be still harboring the notion 
that the legislative and executive departments were 
independent of each other. 

As a remedy I suggest that the so-called chief 
executives shall be looked upon rather as the chief 
legislators, while the heads of the individual de- 
partments shall be regarded as the chief executives. 
This division would be logical because it would 
stand for a complete separation of the two eco- 
nomic factors, namely, the appropriation of 
money, on the one hand, and its expenditure, on 
the other. In such manner the executive would 
exercise a genuine check upon the legislative de- 
partment, because it matters not how lavishly the 
funds were appropriated by the legislative bodies, 
the department heads could see that they were ex- 
pended without waste. The people as a rule are 
not so much concerned in the sums appropriated as 
they are in the idea that a dollar spent shall bring 
a dollar's worth in return. For example, they do 
not as a rule object to the appropriation of suffi- 
cient money for street cleaning purposes to enable 
the streets to be cleaned. But they do object to 
the expenditure of enough money to keep them 
clean and finding them dirty. 

5 



THE people's government 

Now if the chief executive should be trans- 
ferred to the legislative side, where in view of the 
veto power it would seem that he properly be- 
longed, it is evident that a void would be created 
on the executive side for the reason that there 
would then be lacking an entity to whom the indi- 
vidual department heads would be immediately 
subordinate. Therefore a factor would have to 
step in to take his place, and this would be the 
missing link. But the latter as I have it in mind 
would not merely replace the person of the chief 
executive as he has been heretofore known to us, 
because this would be simply substituting one boss 
for another. The fact is that this new entity 
would have to be capable of doing efficiently what 
an ordinary person can only do perfunctorily how- 
ever wise he may be, because It Is not logically 
conceivable that any single individual should know 
more of the details pertaining to each Issue arising 
in departmental management than all the depart- 
ment heads combined, and especially if he had 
never had a single day's experience along the lines 
followed by any department, as so frequently hap- 
pens under our system of government. And if 
we act upon the principle that he does, we simply 
place ourselves in the ridiculous position of em- 
ploying fools to teach the wise. Consequently, if 

6 



THE IDEA 

we desire to be logical, we must put in the place of 
the chief executive an entity that Is capable of per- 
forming the service that Is required of him with 
dignity and grace. Personally, I know of but a 
single element that Is qualified to occupy such a 
position. This Is justice. Thus, my viewpoint Is 
that all Issues arising In departmental management 
shall be decided on their merits, an ideal which 
cannot be reached unless the facts are weighed In 
the balance and the decisions rendered accord- 
ingly. And, as this Is the function of justice, my 
theory of government resolves itself Into the Idea 
expressed in the five words that if we want an hon- 
est and efliclent administration we must conduct 
departments on judiciary principles. 

From what I have stated It naturally follows 
that, in my opinion at least, the checks and bal- 
ances as originally Intended would come much 
nearer to our ideal If the heads of the Individual 
departments should act as checks upon the legisla- 
tive department, and the judiciary rather than the 
legislative bodies should act as the check upon the 
Individual department heads. This would serve 
to take the Individual departments out of the 
hands of the politicians; for while the latter would 
still have the power to appropriate the funds at 
their disposal to suit their pleasure, they would no 

7 



THE people's government 

longer have the same kind of power to control 
their expenditure. They would still have the 
power to declare what shall be done, but the way 
of doing things would be decided by the depart- 
ment heads under the control of the judiciary. 
But the judiciary as I have it in mind from this 
point of view would differ from the ordinary ju- 
diciary both in its makeup and its duties. As for 
its makeup this would be such as to render It im- 
possible for it to fall a prey to the politicians, 
while Its philosophy would stand for a new branch 
of jurisprudence, namely, the jurisprudence of effi- 
ciency, which, under its direction, would be In due 
course developed. In such cases as theft, graft, 
bribery, and so on, the duties of the present ju- 
diciary need not be extended, because they suffi- 
ciently cover the ground. But there is one ele- 
ment that they do not cover, namely, that of waste ; 
and the Idea that I have In mind is the establish- 
ment of a judiciary with a view to the prevention 
of unnecessary waste. 



CHAPTER II 

THE ECONOMIC AND MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 
UNNECESSARY WASTE 

As I see it, all unnecessary waste In the public 
service would be eliminated if each issue arising 
in departmental management should be decided on 
its merits. And the thought that I here regard as 
new is that all such issues should be so decided. 
At this point I shall expect the reader to be sur- 
prised not at the expression of the idea, which he 
will probably look upon as axiomatic, but at the 
notion that any one in the present era should have 
the hardihood to present it as new. But yet, my 
dear reader, I doubt whether any one since the be- 
ginning of time has before this made the sugges- 
tion with the notion that it should be applied in 
practice. The truth is that while it may be looked 
upon at first as an axiom it is not so in fact, be- 
cause in the nature of things opposites cannot be 
axioms, and the governments have always been 
conducted on the basis of a principle that appears 

9 



THE people's government 

to be equally logical, while it is at least in part an 
opposite. 

Thus the principle that has always been recog- 
nized has been that of placing an individual at the 
head of a department, giving him the power to de- 
cide each issue as he thinks best, and then holding 
him responsible for the results. As it stands this 
proposition appears to be fully as logical as that 
each issue should be decided on its merits. But 
aside from the fact that it is intrinsically absurd, 
for reasons that I shall explain, it is antithetical to 
the view that all issues shall be decided on their 
merits, because it would be unjust to demand that 
a department head should decide an issue on its 
merits and be held responsible for the results if 
he could obtain better ones by deciding it contrary 
to its merits. That is, while in some instances 
truth and justice are clearly more profitable than 
untruth and injustice, this is not so of all; and one 
who is held responsible for the results alone must 
be permitted to be untruthful and unjust in those 
instances in which these will lead to the more 
profitable results. If the reader should object to 
the idea that a department chief should be per- 
mitted to be truthful or untruthful at his discre- 
tion, then he will have to favor the abolition of his 
privilege to be untruthful; and, if so, he will be 

lO 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

automatically driven to favor the proposition that 
each issue shall be decided on its merits, for there 
is no other alternative. 

Therefore, if we should come to an agreement 
to the effect that hereafter each Issue must be de- 
cided on its merits, then consistency to our scheme 
of justice would demand that the department head 
be relieved of the responsibility for the results. 
Apparently this would demand a sacrifice on our 
part which we should not make without careful 
deliberation. But actually this is not the case by 
reason of the absurdity involved in the original 
proposition. And the absurdity lies in this, 
namely, that one who manages the affairs of an- 
other is not, never has been, and in the nature of 
things can never be made, responsible for the re- 
sults, when the results are considered from the 
standpoint of waste. While the proprietor may 
give a manager the power to waste by authorizing 
him to decide the various issues as they arise, he 
himself will retain the responsibility for the waste, 
because it Is he, and not the manager, who will be 
obliged to pay the bills. The best he can do Is to 
lock the stable door after the horse has been 
stolen by discharging the manager who has been 
wasting his funds. Therefore the wiser course 
to pursue, if one is desirous of preventing waste, 

II 



THE people's government 

IS that of refraining from conferring upon the 
manager the power to waste by demanding that 
each issue be decided on its merits. 

At this place, however, we must be cautious in 
order to avoid falling into a trap. Thus, as the 
proposition reads, it would appear to stand for the 
idea that from a purely business point of view the 
wisest course to pursue would always be that of 
appointing as manager the one who was the most 
capable and desirous of reducing waste. But this 
does not necessarily follow ; and it Is in fact true 
only when the conditions are such that the elimi- 
nation of waste is the controlling element in the 
attainment of success. For if it should be true 
as a general proposition, it would naturally have 
to follow that the most successful financial results 
were obtained by those persons whose affairs were 
conducted with the least waste, and vice versa. 
But this theory is upset by the fact that when we 
look about us we do not find any such thing. In- 
deed, what we do find in business is the absence of 
any direct relation between financial success and 
waste; a concern that wastes practically nothing 
often having great difficulty in making both ends 
meet, while one that wastes inordinately may be- 
come enormously wealthy. This is so for the rea- 
son that in business many factors are called into 

12 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

play of which the problem of waste Is but one. 
Therefore, when other factors are favorable, the 
effect of the waste on the general result, even if 
it should amount to very substantial sums, may 
be practically negligible. 

From what has been mentioned It naturally fol- 
lows that In the conduct of a business the losses 
sustained through waste may be offset by profits 
obtained through enterprise or shrewdness, so that 
a manager who is very enterprising or shrewd may 
achieve better financial results even if recklessly 
wasteful than a manager who reduces the waste to 
a minimum, but is lacking in the elements that 
make for a success. As for the trap, this lies in 
the fact that while it might be supposed that the 
same thing would apply to government, such a 
notion would be delusive, because government Is 
not business. That we have come to look upon 
the management of a public department In the 
light of a business Is evident from the fact that we 
have become accustomed to declare that It should 
be conducted strictly on business principles. The 
truth is, however, that a public department is not 
a business in the ordinary sense of the word, be- 
cause the term implies the idea of something to sell 
at a profit In order to obtain funds with which to 
buy, while the public departments, with a few ex- 

13 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

ceptions, buy only, and call upon the people to pay 
the bills. And this is the reason why it requires 
no general or special education or intelligence or 
training to be qualified to occupy the head position 
in any department of the public service in the land. 
We have here not a condition under which the 
losses sustained through wasteful management 
may become more than counterbalanced by enter- 
prise or shrewdness on the side of profits, as there 
is but one side to the ledger. Consequently the 
controlling factor in the difference between effi- 
ciency and inefficiency in the management of a pub- 
lic department centers in the conception of waste. 

Nor do the conditions differ in those excep- 
tional instances in which the departments have 
something to sell, whether postage stamps, water, 
or gas, because the circumstances are siii generis 
in that the receipts are not dependent upon the 
business talents of the manager, but are auto- 
matically regulated by the expenditures just as 
water seeks its own level. It is only that under 
good management the prices or the taxes or both 
go down, while under mismanagement they do the 
reverse. Or the difference may manifest itself in 
a difference in the quality of the commodity or of 
the service at the same expenditure. 

If the foregoing analysis should be warranted 
14 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

by the facts, then it would naturally follow that 
while from a strictly business point of view it may 
be wise in the conduct of a business to give the 
head of a department the power to use his discre- 
tion in deciding the various issues as they arise in 
buying and selling as well as in the supervision of 
the employees, it would not be wise to follow that 
policy in the conduct of a public department, be- 
cause the conditions here are so entirely different. 
The essential difference, as has been indicated, is 
that while in business the income is obtained as a 
result of earnings produced by the manager, so 
that the value of his services may be gauged by the 
balance sheet, in a public department it is obtained 
by the manager without having been earned by 
himself, so that the value of his services cannot be 
gauged by the balance sheet. In fact, a public de- 
partment simply receives its income in the form 
of a trust fund, and under a pledge that it will be 
expended without any unnecessary waste. 

The logic of what I am here driving at is this, 
briefly, that while It may be wise to give consider- 
able leeway in the method of expending funds to 
one who Is obliged to earn more than he spends, 
it Is no less wise to restrict the mode of expendi- 
ture In the case of one who has the authority to 
spend money that does not belong to him and 

15 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

that he has taken no part in earning, and espe- 
cially when he is under no obligation whatever to 
make good what he wastes. To pursue the same 
policy under these conditions as in business is to 
invite looting. 

That looting does not necessarily follow is evi- 
dent from the fact that there are many countries 
in which the public affairs are honestly adminis- 
tered, although heretofore this method has been 
universally pursued because no other has been 
known. But where honesty is maintained in spite 
of it, it is only because factors are brought into 
play that serve to prevent dishonesty. However, 
as these include appointments on a basis of merit 
and a code of honor among politicians, it is clear 
that they do not obtain with us. Nor can they 
ever obtain in a democracy unless its spirit is cast 
to the winds, as it Is contrary to its spirit to de- 
mand that merit be considered a condition of eligi- 
bility for positions at the top. Indeed, unless all 
citizens In good moral standing, irrespective of 
education or intelligence, are looked upon as eligi- 
ble for such positions, we cannot speak of a democ- 
racy. But this Is a condition that must be recog- 
nized In a practical way if efficient service may be 
expected In spite of It. Its recognition from a 
practical point of view will lie In acting upon the 

i6 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

assumption that the bosses are Ignorant, and con- 
sequently in guarding against waste by resorting to 
a system of management under which they will 
not be endowed with the authority to waste. 
The philosophy of this is that the chief must be 
placed under the obligation to do right because it 
is right, while the results must be permitted to take 
care of themselves. 

I have mentioned that from a strictly business 
point of view it may be wise in the conduct of a 
business to give the head of a department the 
power to buy and sell and to supervise his sub- 
ordinates as he chooses, and then gauge the value 
of his services by the results. But when I declare 
that a public official must do right because it is 
right regardless of the results, I am opening the 
way to the discussion of quite another side of the 
story, namely, the ethical phase of unnecessary 
waste. Yet when our proposition as to discre- 
tionary power Is carried to its logical conclusion, 
we find that while it may be sound from the stand- 
point of profits, it will not bear scrutiny in the 
light of ethics, as It is merely an endorsement of 
the doctrine that the end justifies the means. 
That is, if we adopt the plan of giving the busi- 
ness manager discretionary power and judging the 
value of his services on the basis of the balance 

17 



THE people's government 

sheet alone, we cannot be consistent in pursuing 
that policy unless we refrain from asking him 
questions as to his methods of dealing with those 
from whom he buys or to whom he sells, or as to 
his actions towards his competitors, or as to the 
demands he makes upon his subordinates. So 
long as the profits are satisfactory, such items as 
truth and justice become practically negligible fac- 
tors, as they are not weighed in the balance. 

Whether in conducting a business honesty or 
dishonesty is the best policy is a question that can- 
not be answered dogmatically in favor of either 
side, because these are general terms which re- 
quire an explanation. That they cannot be used 
In an absolute sense is evident from the fact that 
no one can be absolutely honest, because to be so 
would necessitate human perfection; nor can any 
one be absolutely dishonest, because the policeman 
would come in to stop the game. Then, again, 
we are confronted by the difficulty of drawing a 
line between honesty and dishonesty as a policy. 
In the case of an individual act this difficulty does 
not arise to the same extent, because there are so 
many instances in which an act is either obviously 
honest or dishonest. But a policy applies to gen- 
eral conduct; and as the best individual occasion- 
ally does something unworthy, while the worst oc- 

i8 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

caslonally does something worthy, the question of 
honesty or dishonesty as a policy is clearly one of 
proportions and must be studied as such. 

Thus human conduct is characterized by a mix- 
ture of honesty and dishonesty in varying propor- 
tions; and it seems to me that, all other things 
being equal, the best policy from the standpoint of 
profits In conducting a business is that which repre- 
sents the greatest amount of dishonesty within the 
law that the traffic will bear. As to the exact 
amount that it will bear, an analysis, if it could be 
made, would probably show very great variations 
In different lines and under different conditions. 
But of one thing we may be assured without going 
to the trouble of making an analysis, namely, that 
the maximum will be reached in one particular 
field, which Is that of the corporations, and, more- 
over, that In the case of the more powerful of 
these the traffic will bear all the dishonesty that 
the law will allow. And that this Is not a mere 
hypothesis is proved not only by the fact that the 
enormous wealth accumulated by some of our cor- 
porations has been the direct result of their un- 
ethical methods, but also by the fact that It has 
been found necessary to restrict the field of legal 
dishonesty In the form of anti-trust legislation. 
As the corporation has no soul, we naturally can- 

19 



THE people's government 

not depend upon its conscience to respect the 
rights or desires of others, so that the law must 
step in to serve as a check. And if we are desirous 
of studying what the doctrine of the balance sheet 
without regard for ethics means when carried to 
its logical conclusion, it is to the corporations that 
we m.ust go in order to obtain our data. 

That the theory of the policy of honesty as 
above expressed will not be universally accepted as 
sound is evident from the fact that successful indi- 
viduals are in the habit of claiming that they had 
acquired their wealth honestly, while unsuccessful 
ones are equally in the habit of claiming that 
wealth cannot be acquired without resorting to 
methods to which their moral principles will not 
permit them to stoop. Therefore, from a strictly 
scientific viewpoint the proposition must be classed 
as debatable. But if we look upon it from the 
standpoint of religion, the members of society who 
are sufficiently orthodox to believe In the Bible 
literally will be forced by coi^sistency to accept it 
as true, because it tells us not only that when the 
Millennium arrives the last will be first and the 
first last, but also that " It Is easier for a camel to 
go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man 
to enter Into the kingdom of God." 

As I am not sufficiently orthodox to believe that 

20 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

the world was created in six days, or sufficiently 
atheistic to deny the existence of God, I am en- 
titled to take a compromise view, which is that if 
one is unusually talented or lucky he may succeed 
in acquiring wealth or rank honestly, but that 
under equal conditions the chances are, as a rule, 
considerably in favor of the liar. And this stand- 
point is justified by the fact that the liar has two 
methods at his disposal where the truthful indi- 
vidual has but one. In brief, while the truthful 
man who has a definite goal in view will go no 
farther toward reaching it than the truth will take 
him — that is, he will turn back if it will not take 
him the whole way in preference to gaining his 
point by dishonest means — the untruthful one 
who is worldly wise in the spirit of Machiavelli 
will travel as far with truth as this will carry him; 
and, if this will not take him the whole way, he will 
resort to trickery to complete the task when it is 
not contrary to policy to do so. But when we 
give to a manager the power to reach his goal as 
best he can, it is this that is in store for us. 

The truth of what I have just stated was first 
called to rny attention in a forcible manner by an 
incident that was related to me some years ago by 
the proprietor of a well-known journal. The 
facts in the case were these, namely, that a change 

21 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

In business managers was followed by a great 
shrinkage In the profits of the advertising depart- 
ment, although the management of the latter did 
not change hands. Then on looking into the mat- 
ter it was found that the shrinkage had been due 
simply to the fact that the advertising manager 
had succeeded in working up a large business on a 
false statement as to circulation to which the previ- 
ous business manager had subscribed, but to which 
the new one had refused to subscribe. On learn- 
ing the fact the proprietor had the good grace to 
stand by the truth, with the understanding that the 
advertising manager should thereafter make a plea 
for business on the basis of the cleanliness of the 
publication, of which there was no doubt. How- 
ever, although cleanliness is next to godliness, the 
plea failed to work, and the advertising depart- 
ment lost nearly all its clientele. 

From the preceding It would appear that busi- 
ness acumen and ethics were antagonistic, although 
the question may perhaps be regarded as a de- 
batable one. But the point of interest to us is 
that even if It should be true of the management 
of a business, it would nevertheless be untrue of 
the management of a public department, which is 
not a business in the ordinary sense, because it does 
not work for profits. And the truth in regard to 

22 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

the latter Is that so far from business acumen and 
ethics being antagonistic, they actually meet here 
on a common platform with a degree of exactitude 
that is not exceeded by the law of gravitation. 
Consequently, we have here before us a condition 
under which self-interest and ethics become united 
by an inseparable bond, and therefore one under 
which we may safely proceed on the basis of doing 
right because it is right without any fear that such 
a policy will result in financial sacrifices. In the 
public departments, then, we have a field in which 
those acts which are the most ethical are also the 
best from an economic point of view. That this 
may not be apparent at the first glance is evident 
from the fact that it is not the most honorable, but 
the most unscrupulous, among the officials who 
fare the best from a material standpoint, because 
the honorable do not receive a share of the plun- 
der. This, however, is all a mere delusion based 
on the notion that the government belongs to the 
pohticians, while in truth it belongs to the people. 
If we look at the question from the standpoint 
of the officials, then business shrewdness and ethics 
are again found to be antagonistic, because those 
who enter politics for business purposes cannot 
gain their ends by the adoption of ethical means. 
If, however, we view It from the standpoint of the 

23 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

people, then It will be found to be true that busi- 
ness shrewdness and ethics are united, because the 
majority of them can have no object In giving the 
preference to dishonest rather than to honest of- 
ficials, although this Is not true of all. But In a 
democracy the majority Is supposed to rule. 

The real difficulty that we have to contend with 
in this matter is not the antagonism between 
shrewdness and ethics as In ordinary business, but 
antagonism of a different sort, namely, that be- 
tween the Interests of the people, on the one hand, 
and those of the public servants, on the other, 
which logically are diametrically opposed in that 
whatever is good business for the people Is poor 
business for the politicians, and vice versa, the 
inversion here being In fact complete. In order 
to be able to appreciate this it will be simply neces- 
sary to bear in mind that while It is In the nature 
of things that the master should make the best 
bargain when he buys cheap, It is equally natural 
that the servant should make the best bargain 
when he buys dear. And the reason is obviously 
that when the latter buys cheap there Is nothing in 
it for him, and that when he buys dear the differ- 
ence between the lowest market price and the 
actual purchasing price goes to his personal credit 
in whole or In part, which he may collect in cash or 

24 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

Utilize for the purchase of favors from the seller. 
Thus, salary aside, what Is profit to the politician 
is waste to the people. 

The evident discrepancy here between theory 
and practice. In that the public official cannot do 
just as he chooses, is not due to a flaw in the 
theory, as this can only be looked upon as an 
axiom. It may, however, be explained on the 
basis of another antagonism, namely, that between 
natural and social forces. For, if nature should 
have its own way then a public servant could loot 
to his heart's content by paying the lowest market 
price for what he purchased and charging the 
people as much as he desired. But nature is pre- 
vented from having its own way because the law 
and public opinion step in as counteracting forces, 
with the result that the public servants can only 
loot to the extent that the traffic will bear, the ex- 
tent being regulated not only by the conditions, 
but also by the form in which It manifests itself. 
The forms themselves are very numerous. Includ- 
ing not only theft and tangible graft, but also in- 
tangible graft, or the purchase of personal favors 
with the people's money, and voluntary waste, 
which is the result of a refusal to take advantage 
of the most economical methods for no reason 
other than that of the pleasure of exercising 

25 



THE people's government 

power. In truth, the plunder that takes place in 
our public service manifests itself for the most 
part in Intangible graft and voluntary waste, 
against which we have not yet learned just how 
to protect ourselves, the difficulties being due to 
the fact that the untruth and Injustice involved in 
them do not fall within the category of crime. 
And it Is these alone that will constitute the factors 
of our particular problem, because theft and 
tangible graft are already covered by existing 
laws. The only remedy In their case lies in adopt- 
ing the system of deciding each Issue on Its merits, 
which, as has been explained, will require a change 
that can only be effected under our conditions as 
the result of a leap from boss rule to judicial rule. 
In this connection It will be essential for the sake 
of clearness to call attention to the fact that while 
Intangible graft and voluntary waste are not to be 
endorsed under any conditions from an ethical 
point of view, the same thing cannot be said when 
they are judged from a business standpoint. This 
Is so because there Is one condition under which 
the dishonesty of a servant may result In a gain 
Instead of a loss to the master, namely, when It 
manifests Itself on both sides of the ledger. 
Thus, a dishonest person In the employ of another 
may not only cheat the latter, but may also cheat 

26 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

for him ; and dishonesty will prove to be profitable 
if the amount of cheating on the credit side ex- 
ceeds that on the debit side. It is this that con- 
stitutes the philosophy of judging the efficiency of 
a manager by the balance sheet alone, and inciden- 
tally the materialistic standpoint of the end justi- 
fying the means. 

That even the government when taken as a 
whole is not free from this entanglement is evi- 
dent from the fact that so many great economic 
and social developments since the beginning of 
time have taken place as a result of a disregard of 
the Golden Rule in its dealings with alien peoples. 
But this again is a matter apart from our subject, 
which is not concerned with foreign affairs, but 
looks only to honest management of affairs at 
home. However, the doctrine of the balance 
sheet could not be applied to government even 
from the standpoint of foreign affairs without 
leading us into a reductio ad ahsurdum. And the 
reason Is that the diplomatic service and the public 
service are in different hands, with the result that 
whatever injustice may be displayed by the diplo- 
mats Is intended to militate for the interests of the 
master, while that displayed by the members of 
the public service can only have the effect of mili- 
tating against his Interests. If a member of the 

27 



THE people's government 

diplomatic service should at the same time hold a 
position in the public service, as, for example, that 
of chief of a municipal department, then his suc- 
cess in concluding a profitable treaty with a for- 
eign nation might serve as an excuse for overlook- 
ing a wasteful contract that he had made for the 
disposal of garbage. But with matters arranged 
as they are in government, the doctrine could only 
hold by arguing that because A had succeeded in 
his negotiations for a profitable treaty, B was en- 
titled to make a poor contract for the disposal of 
the garbage, which is obviously absurd. There- 
fore, it applies to those instances only in which an 
individual who is a factor in earning is at the same 
time empowered to control the expenditures, in 
which case waste due to weakness on the side of 
expenditures could be overlooked by the master 
from a business standpoint if it should be more 
than counterbalanced by strength on the other side. 
As, for the reasons stated, this contingency can- 
not arise in government, it is evident that in the 
conduct of public affairs voluntary waste is never 
justifiable from any point of view. But why 
should it be looked upon as unjustifiable in business 
from an ethical standpoint in those instances in 
which it would be good policy to permit an able 
manager to waste if he desired to be humored by 

28 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

being given his own way? The explanation Is 
that in doing so he sins not only against the mas- 
ter, who forgives him in consideration of value 
received, but also against his subordinates, who, 
in order to keep their jobs, are obliged to become 
his accomplices in cheating the master, which is the 
characteristic feature of the system of boss rule. 
Of course, if a manager should openly declare 
that he was wasting because it afforded him amuse- 
ment to waste, and that his subordinates were as- 
sisting him in the sport because he insisted upon 
their humoring him, no harm would be done as 
the situation would be understood. But the diffi- 
culty is that the thing does not work in any such 
manner, as the boss never confesses that he wastes. 
On the contrary, he always takes the stand that 
he is doing the best thing that can possibly be done, 
and that those of his subordinates who object to 
his decisions are either fools or knaves. There- 
fore, by reason of the wheels within wheels, things 
become so inverted under the direction of a waste- 
ful manager that the truthful subordinate is pun- 
ished for telling the truth, while the liar is re- 
warded for his lies. That a business concern 
should put up with a situation of that nature is not 
at all illogical, because the earning capacity of the 
manager may be such as to make it advisable to 

29 



THE people's government 

give him his own way by refusing to support the 
honest subordinates. But that the people should 
take any such stand in the conduct of their public 
departments cannot be explained except upon the 
theory that the correct method has not as yet been 
discovered. 

Even if the people should not feel disposed to 
accept my method without further ado, it must at 
least be said in their favor that they do not volun- 
tarily lend their support to untruth and injustice 
in the management of those departments which 
properly belong to the public service. And I shall 
not criticise them too severely if, in spite of the 
appearance of this work, they will still continue to 
harbor the notion that salvation is to be sought 
not in the abolition of one man power, but in the 
philosopher's dream of finding a perfectly ethical 
man for the head of every department in the land. 
Indeed, my sense of equity is fortunately such that 
I shall continue as heretofore to wish them success 
in their search, although it is only a question of 
time when they will come to recognize that this 
ideal can never be reached under any circum- 
stances, and not even approximately reached un- 
less the democratic ideal is abandoned. However, 
when we turn from politics to business a different 
story is to be told, because in business the ideal lies 

30 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

In finding not the perfectly ethical man to manage 
the affairs, but the biggest earner; and here the 
Ideal of society must He In learning how to prevent 
those dominated by selfishness from becoming 
slaves to their passions. In this, however, so- 
ciety has not been Idle; for in the course of time 
It has succeeded In developing a number of inhibit- 
ing forces whose activities are brought into play 
in degrees varying with the conditions. 

Of these inhibiting forces, which serve to pre- 
vent the selfish from losing control of their pas- 
sions, four are particularly worthy of mention, 
and, in fact, for the most part, if not entirely, 
cover the ground. They are: First, the law, 
which inhibits dishonesty through fear of Impris- 
onment; secondly, the desire on the part of the 
masters to win a good reputation for the sake of 
policy, which leads to caution in estimating the 
limits of the dishonesty that the traffic will bear 
within the law; thirdly, the love of a good name, 
not for the sake of policy, but for that of honor or 
pride ; and, fourthly, the conscience, which will not 
permit the Individual to do wrong even when he Is 
in a position to do so without any fear of violating 
business policy or sacrificing his good name. Of 
these, the second and third propositions belong to 
the category of public opinion, and they are both 

31 



THE people's government 

powerful factors In making for honesty although 
based on different motives. 

Now a striking feature of these Inhibitory 
forces Is that they serve to divide business Into two 
distinct classes, namely, the private concern and 
the corporation, with the result that It Is natural 
for the latter to be conducted on a much lower 
moral plane than the former. The reason Is that 
in the private concern they are all brought Into 
play, and In the corporation the first two only, and 
simply because the one belongs to individuals, who 
may not only take pride In a good name, but also 
have a conscience to keep them from degrading 
their employees by putting a premium upon their 
dishonesty, while the other belongs to stockhold- 
ers, who as individuals are not personally known 
In the management, and whose good names and 
consciences therefore do not play a part In the 
game. Consequently, while In the case of the pri- 
vate concern untruth and injustice In any of its 
activities, whether In buying or selling or In Its re- 
lations with Its competitors or employees, will re- 
flect, upon the responsible heads or masters. In the 
case of the corporation they can only reflect upon 
the irresponsible heads or managers. But as the 
corporation managers are judged by their Intangi- 
ble masters on a basis of financial success rather 

32 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

than moral character, we find that In the manage- 
ment of the corporations the ethical element be- 
comes only a side Issue, being dependent entirely 
upon the good will of the managers. For this 
reason it Is here that the logical conclusion of the 
doctrine of the balance sheet may be studied as 
nowhere else. What the managers of the power- 
ful corporations will do to achieve financial suc- 
cess Is too well known to require elucidation In this 
book. But it may be remarked In passing that the 
proof of the absence of a soul In corporations Is 
so admirably furnished by the fact that the law 
and business policy alone are capable of keeping 
them In check. 

As for the management of a corporation being 
compared to that of a government, this much may 
be said, namely, that while the two are similar in 
some respects, there Is, nevertheless, aside from 
the question of business, this essential difference 
between them, that a government Is not devoid of 
a soul. The fact Is that the latter exists here in 
the form of the universal ego, which is not a 
mythical conception, but manifests itself as love 
of country, or patriotism, the element that unites 
all good citizens Into one family, and which has 
no counterpart In the stockholders of a corpora- 
tion. In the community or nation we have a rec- 

33 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

ognized ego or " I " as well as a " We.'* That Is, 
although I am but one in a hundred million and 
may not have a penny to my name, no one will find 
it ridiculous if I say that I love my country or that 
me have great resources. Indeed, a national 
anthem teaches me that this country Is mine. 
Now If a corporation should be the counterpart of 
a government, then a stockholder would have to 
be the counterpart of a citizen even If he should 
own but a single share. However, If I should be 
the owner of a share of a railway company and 
should say that I loved my railroad or that we 
carried a great many passengers every day, the 
people would think I was crazy. 

The question then Is : " Who are the * Vs ' and 
the ' we's ' In a big corporation?" As for the 
former there is no such thing; for to be an " I " 
it Is necessary to own every bond and share of 
stock, which Is next to Impossible. But does this 
also apply to the " we's "? To this I must reply 
In the negative, as these are Innumerable. It Is 
only that they are to be found not among the mas- 
ters, but among the employees. This is evident 
from the fact that while It would seem ridiculous 
for even the owner of ten thousand shares of stock 
to say: " We have a train at six o'clock and an- 
other at nine," the same statement would appear 

34 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

quite natural if coming from the ticket agent or a 
boy at the bureau of information. Thus, what- 
ever stability there may be in a large corporation 
does not rest in the ownership, but in the employees 
who look after the property while the shifting own- 
ers are busy gambling in the stock. Therefore, the 
corporations are conducted on the principle that 
when the cat's away the mice will play; and when 
the managers here are unscrupulous the game is 
played in the form of a boss rule that puts the most 
unscrupulous politicians to shame. That the influ- 
ence of this game does not manifest itself in neg- 
lect of duty on the side of earnings is evident from 
the history of corporate greed, which leaves little 
to be desired. It is therefore limited to the side 
of expenditures, where it manifests itself in the 
form of waste. 

In discussing this question with my friends, I 
have discovered that naive individuals are under 
the impression that the management of corpora- 
tions is not likely to be wasteful, because, in their 
opinion, those who wish to make a success of their 
business cannot possibly have any motive for wast- 
ing. That a material motive therefor is lacking 
is perfectly clear; but another element is here 
brought into play which will serve as an adequate 
explanation. Thus, while there is no pleasure in 

3S 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

wasting for the sake of wasting, there is pleasure 
in bossing for the sake of bossing; and as the love 
of power Is one of the strongest of human pas- 
sions, It Is In this that the motive will be found. 
A person who spends a hundred thousand dollars 
a year to maintain a stable of thoroughbreds does 
not do so for the sake of spending that sum, but 
because he enjoys the sport. In brief, the man at 
the top wastes when he has the power to do so 
not because he enjoys the waste, but because he en- 
joys the sport of subjecting others to his will. And 
In the corporations he enjoys privileges in this 
respect that are not paralleled in any other field in 
an enlightened country, partly because there is no 
such thing as patriotism among the stockholders, 
and partly because even the most ethical among 
them do not appear desirous of killing the goose 
that lays the golden egg. That is, if the manager 
of a corporation is the means of earning ten mil- 
lion dollars a year, it Is deemed quite proper that 
he should be permitted to waste a million in the 
enjoyment of the sport of bossing the ranch, even 
If in so doing he not only wastes the million, but 
converts his subordinates into moral degenerates. 
The sums wasted in this manner in the public 
service and the corporations, even if amounting to 
billions per annum, may be readily replenished. In 

36 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

the former by an Increase In taxes, and in the latter 
by an Increase In prices. But the moral degrada- 
tion coincident upon this species of boss rule can- 
not be compensated for by the wealth of nations. 
The general viewpoint In regard to public and cor- 
porate waste falls to hit the mark, because the peo- 
ple are In the habit of thinking of such waste In 
terms of dollars and cents, while the question Is 
primarily one of morals, and only Incidentally one 
of cash; and when they begin to appreciate this 
they will also begin to change their tactics. If my 
meaning is not clear In the first instance, it will be- 
come so when It Is borne In mind that In all forms 
of crime involving questions of money only, It Is 
primarily not the loss of money to the victim, 
which is often a mere bagatelle, but the crime 
per se against which society rebels. And In the 
case of voluntary waste in the management of pub- 
lic and corporate affairs exactly the same moral 
principle Is Involved, although the world has not 
yet come to consider it as such. 

If society is to be consistent with Its own moral 
dictates. It must lend Its support to those who mani- 
fest the desire to do their duty; but In fact it lends 
Its support to the man at the top even when he 
compels his subordinates to humor him to the ex- 
tent of violating the first principles of duty. It is 

37 



THE people's government 

this attitude of the boss toward his subordinates 
that constitutes the source of all voluntary waste ; 
and it is against the endorsement of this attitude 
by society that I rebel, and not against the mone- 
tary losses, however stupendous in the aggregate 
they may be. 

As for the remedy, the plan that I have devised 
will apply to the corporations as well as to govern- 
ment; for while the two forms of organization 
differ in some essential respects, they also have a 
number of points in common. And, fortunately, 
as to the element in which we are specifically inter- 
ested, the two are exactly identical. It is only 
that by reason of the absence of a soul in the cor- 
porations the plan will require modification in 
certain particulars, not to mention that it will natu- 
rally meet with greater opposition from the stand- 
point of adoption, because it may possibly exert an 
unfavorable influence on profits for the reason that 
it may not be easy to find persons with large earn- 
ing capacity unless they are given the privilege to 
boss. However, as for the absence of a soul, this 
in itself need prove no insuperable obstacle, as we 
may here profit by the faith of Voltaire, who de- 
clared that if there were no God we should be 
under the necessity of Inventing one. And in the 
case of the corporations we should be obliged to 

38 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

Invent a God, who, even if infinitely inferior to the 
Almighty, would nevertheless be infinitely supe- 
rior to none. 

Having called attention to the fact that the man- 
agement of a public department differs from that 
of a business In that there Is but one side to the 
ledger, It is equally important to note that in re- 
spect to the side that It does maintain all forms of 
government and of business meet on a common 
platform. The one to which I here refer is that 
of the expenditures or costs. In all forms of ac- 
counting It Is customary for society to base its cal- 
culations on what are known as debits and credits; 
and It Is simply necessary to bear this In mind In 
order to be able to appreciate that whatever differ- 
ences there may be in fundamentals between busi- 
ness and government manifest themselves on the 
credit side, and are due to the fact that In business 
the credits are earned, while In government they 
are exacted. In business we have earnings and 
expenditures and in government taxes and expendi- 
tures; and while there is an essential difference be- 
tween earnings and taxes, expenditures are ex- 
penditures the world around. The government 
has the power to levy taxes as it pleases, but It 
must purchase its labor and supplies on the same 
basis as the private concern and the corporation. 

39 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

Again, when we compare the rationale of earn- 
ings and expenditures, we find that they are oppo- 
sites in every particular, which arises from the fact 
that in the one case the ideal lies in expansion or 
increase in profits, and in the other in contraction 
or decrease in costs. Earnings are obtained as a 
result of competition ; and in order to achieve suc- 
cess it is often necessary to act in haste and to re- 
sort to untruth and injustice for reasons of self- 
preservation, the welfare of the individual being 
here at stake. Reductions in costs, on the other 
hand, are, for the most part, the result of an in- 
crease in working efficiency due to progress in the 
world of science, the benefits of which are intended 
to be universally distributed, the individual Inter- 
ests being only Incidental to those of the race. 

While competition means warfare, science is 
peace, allowing time for deliberation, besides mak- 
ing untruth and injustice hindrances rather than 
helps to success. And that these opposites mani- 
fest themselves very strangely side by side Is evi- 
denced by the fact that the same Individuals who 
carry on a relentless warfare against one another 
during the day will come together as brothers at 
night In society meetings to deliberate upon ques- 
tions of working efficiency, which, for the most 
part, center in the idea of a reduction In costs. In 

40 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

the business and scientific associations, then, we 
have a platform upon which the proprietor of a 
business, the corporation managers, and the public 
employees all meet on a basis of common interests; 
and when the discussions partake of the nature of 
strife, the motive underlying the latter is not a 
selfish one, as In the field of competition, but un- 
selfish in that the war is waged in the interest of 
universal progress. 

What has been stated will serve to call to mind 
the four possible relations In human control : ( i ) 
the decision of questions of Interest to the Indi- 
vidual by the individual; (2) those of universal 
interest by society; (3) those of Individual interest 
by society; and (4) those of universal Interest by 
Individuals. The first is demanded by the doc- 
trine of personal liberty, which is prevented from 
becoming converted into license by the third, the 
element that lies at the basis of legality, both being 
essential to universal progress. The second is the 
ideal of government which has thus far failed of 
realization by reason of the existence of the 
fourth, which continues to remain in vogue, not 
because it is desirable, but because the world has 
not yet learned how to prevent it. Nevertheless, 
a solution of the problem is in store for us, and it 
will be found in separating questions of individual 

41 



THE people's government 

from those of universal interest, or questions of 
business from those of science, or working effi- 
ciency, and deciding the latter on judiciary princi- 
ples, while the former may continue as heretofore 
to be decided on a basis of expediency as the laws 
of competition may demand. As for the efficiency 
courts, it is evident that they would serve the same 
purpose in the conduct of private and corporate 
affairs as in government. It is only that they 
could not be forced upon private concerns or cor- 
porations without subverting the doctrine of per- 
sonal liberty. 

In regard to the novelty of the plan, this of 
course does not lie in the idea of separating the 
business from the scientific departments, which has 
already become the custom among progressive peo- 
ple, but in that of going a step farther by according 
to the scientific departments an independent status. 
The act of establishing a scientific department is 
accomplished when an investigator is added to the 
corps of workers, whether this be in government 
or in business. But there is this difference be- 
tween subordination and independence, that under 
the former the conclusions of the investigator are 
subject to acceptance or rejection at the discretion 
of the man at the top, while under the latter such 
conclusions would be placed beyond his discretion- 

42 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

ary power, and would have to be accepted or re- 
jected on their merits, regardless of personal 
views or inclinations. That is, the head of the 
scientific department would be no longer a sub- 
ordinate of the head of the business or public de- 
partment, but would labor directly under the su- 
pervision of the efficiency court, to which alone he 
would be accountable for his actions. With the 
conditions as they have heretofore been, the re- 
sults of the investigations of the scientific depart- 
ment have often been looked upon in the light of 
mere opinions to be placed side by side with those 
of the boss, who might be entirely ignorant of the 
facts, and yet whose judgment would be given the 
right of way if it did not accord with that of the 
investigator. But under the plan herein sug- 
gested this could no longer occur. 

In sum and substance, the independence of the 
scientific departments would mean that in business 
the costs would be looked upon as a problem inde- 
pendent of earnings, and in government as one in- 
dependent of politics. As this proposition has the 
double advantage of being not only invulnerable 
from the standpoint of pure science, but also in 
perfect harmony with the moral order in demand- 
ing that the truth shall take precedence over all 
other considerations, it is quite safe to assume that 

43 



THE people's government 

the adoption of the plan, at least in the conduct of 
public affairs, will be only a question of time, al- 
though It Is probably destined to meet with a great 
deal of opposition before that time arrives. 

As to the nature of the opposition that may be 
reasonably expected, this practically speaks for 
Itself; for as It so happens that the proposition, 
reduced to its lowest terms, means simply that the 
man at the top shall be robbed of the power to pre- 
vent his subordinates from being faithful to their 
rightful masters. It Is evident that It cannot possi- 
bly be opposed on moral grounds, but only on 
those of expediency. However, as the only possi- 
ble counter proposition, reduced to its lowest 
terms, must be to the effect that it is better for 
society to employ as subordinates persons who will 
cheat the master In obedience to a command of the 
boss than those who will oppose the boss when he 
commands them to do wrong, it is not so easy to 
make a prediction concerning the form in which 
the opposition will manifest itself in the open. 
For would any respectable citizen be bold enough 
to preach such a doctrine on the rostrum or in the 
press? 

However, as a substitution of judicial for boss 
rule In determining questions of working efficiency 
stands for no less than the abolition of a despotic 

44 



UNNECESSARY WASTE 

privilege that it has heretofore been customary for 
the man at the top to enjoy, namely, the right to 
pass judgment on the efficiency and veracity of his 
subordinates without according them the same 
right in return, opposition to the change cannot 
fail to appear, although in a democracy its source 
can be neither personal nor factional, because a 
privilege of that nature is so completely subversive 
of the democratic ideal. Whatever opposition 
there may be will therefore have to manifest itself 
in an intangible form, and more specifically in the 
form of the negative force known as inertia, which 
in this instance could only result from a disinclina- 
tion on the part of the people to make the psycho- 
logical readjustments that would be required be- 
fore they would be able to become accustomed to 
the notion that discipline could be maintained in an 
organization without the necessity of placing an 
arbitrary ruler at the top. And a discussion of 
the character of these readjustments will now be 
in order. 



45 



CHAPTER III 

SOME NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN OUR CONCEP- 
TIONS OF TERMS 

As for the psychological readjustments, I wish 
to say at the outset that if we are desirous of 
building a structure that will hold, we shall be 
obliged to begin at the foundation. And in the 
present instance this will lie in philological consid- 
erations, that is, in a renaissance in the conception 
of the meanings of words that have a direct bear- 
ing on the problem of efficiency in general and the 
relation between bosses and subordinates in par- 
ticular. 

Thus, let us assume that a controversy arises be- 
tween a boss and a subordinate in which the boss 
is lying and the subordinate is telling the truth. 
The question then is: Should the people under 
these circumstances lend their moral support to 
the boss in the interest of discipline or should they 
give It unequivocally to the subordinate though the 
heavens fall? Up to the present time they have 
made it the rule to stand by the boss, not through 

46 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

any deliberate attempt to reward dishonesty and 
punish honesty, but because they have not known 
of any other form of procedure that v/ould work, 
that Is, with labor performed In teams under the 
direction of bosses who are not their own masters. 
As for my question, I have not been able to find 
any Instance In which It has ever been asked be- 
fore, or at least with any Intent of calling forth a 
discussion, because apparently the only respectable 
verdict could be that the truth shall be given the 
precedence over discipline. In fact, I do not know 
of more than two writers, namely, Machlavelll 
and Nietzsche, who have been sufficiently venture- 
some to take the opposite stand. However, as I 
do not regard It as likely that my plan will be 
shelved until at least some attempts shall have 
been made to prove its absurdity, I shall take It 
upon myself to suggest what lines of argument in 
opposition would be, In my opinion, likely to lead 
to the most fruitful results, and also to answer 
those objections here, in order that the prelimi- 
naries may be threshed out with the appearance of 
this work. 

My thesis Is, then, that when a controversy 
arises between a boss and a subordinate the truth 
shall be given the precedence over discipline, and 
the issue therefore decided in favor of the sub- 

47 



THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT 

ordinate If he Is right. Here the critic Is entitled 
to ask: What Is truth? 

However, while In the case of truth my thesis 
Is as secure as the law of gravitation, I take a dif- 
ferent stand In regard to opinion; for here my 
plan demands that when the opinions of bosses and 
subordinates differ those of the bosses shall be 
given the right of way. Question: What Is an 
opinion and wherein does It differ from truth? 

Next It will be pertinent to ask whether the 
plan that I am proposing Is sufficiently practical to 
be worthy of adoption even If demanded from the 
standpoint of abstract ethics. This will call for 
a definition of terms that have a direct bearing on 
the conception of practicality, foremost among 
which are theory and theoretical, practice and 
practical. 

And, finally, as the suggestion to give the right 
of way to truth In preference to discipline will Inci- 
dentally accrue to the benefit of efficiency, and as 
Increased efficiency has Its inception In universal 
experience, our notions concerning the meaning of 
efficiency and experience are also In need of read- 
justment in the light of my thesis. 

Let us now look a little more closely Into the 
conceptions of some of these terms In order to see 
what mental readjustments would be required if 

48 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

the adoption of my plan should ever be contem- 
plated. 

First, then : What is truth ? Personally, I can- 
not, of course, enter into the discussion of this 
question without seeing the humorous side. For 
if the greatest of thinkers from the beginning of 
time to the present day have been unable to give 
a satisfactory explanation as to what the truth 
really is, does it not seem rather ridiculous on my 
part to pretend to have definite views on the sub- 
ject? And yet at the risk of making myself ridicu- 
lous I shall be bold enough to declare that I have, 
although they may not be very profound. For, 
as I see it, truth is represented by the conception 
of a proposition that will admit of neither a denial 
nor a counter proposition that society would not 
regard as irrational. Thus: 

Proposition i : Two is more than one. De- 
nial : Two is not more than one. Counter propo- 
sition: One is more than two. Proposition 2: 
Water runs down hill. Denial: Water does not 
run down hill. Counter proposition : Water runs 
up hill. 

Now obvious as all this may appear. It is never- 
theless evident that there must be some kind of a 
flaw somewhere along the line. For if the truth 

49 



THE people's government 

should really be something so elementary as this, 
how could it happen that the more intellectual 
among my friends should have smiled so know- 
ingly when I told them that I favored the notion 
of giving the truth the precedence over all other 
considerations? And when I insisted to the ex- 
tent of showing them that I really meant what I 
said, why did they turn around and chide me for 
presuming to know that two was more than one 
or that water ran down hill when even Socrates, 
the wisest of men, had declared that he knew but 
one thing, which was that he knew nothing? 
That Socrates said this I should not think of de- 
nying, because I could not rationally deny a fact 
of record; but I do not think he meant it to be 
accepted literally. What he probably did mean 
was simply that a person who pretends to wisdom 
must refrain from taking a dogmatic stand in re- 
gard to propositions the answer to which is not 
clear. The confusion here, it seems to me, has 
been the result of a non-sequitur, namely, the idea 
that because we cannot know everything about 
everything, we cannot know anything about any- 
thing. Thus, if after considering the pros and 
cons in reference to the conception of virtue we ar- 
rive at the conclusion that we cannot be sure of 
what it is, are we warranted In accepting this as 

50 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

proof that we cannot know whether two is more 
or less than one or whether water runs up or down 
hill? 

But let us look a little further into this. Socra- 
tes claimed that he knew more than any of his 
contemporaries because he knew at least that he 
knew nothing, while the others did not even know 
that much; and the Skeptics went a step farther 
by proclaiming that they did not even know 
enough to know that they knew nothing. But 
here I enter a claim that stands as a diametrical 
opposite, namely, that I know positively not only 
some things, but so many things that I feel myself 
competent to go on making statements indefinitely 
without any fear of intelligent contradiction, so 
many in fact that there would not be enough paper 
in the world to print them all. Do I mean to indi- 
cate by this that I know infinitely more than Socra- 
tes knew? Not at all; for any ordinary child can 
do the same thing. Thus, one is less than two; 
one is less than three, and so on, ad infinitum. 
Again, A is a letter of the alphabet; B is a letter 
of the alphabet, etc. Or, B comes after A and 
before C; C comes after B and before D, etc.; 
New York has more inhabitants than Chicago; 
New York has more inhabitants than Philadelphia, 
etc. There is an impression to the effect that 

51 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

every one Is entitled to his own opinion. But can 
there be two Intelligent opinions on millions of pos- 
sible propositions of this sort? Would any of 
them admit of a denial or a counter proposition 
that society would not regard as ridiculous? 

If Socrates exceeded all other persons In wis- 
dom because he was conscious of the fact that he 
knew nothing, then I may claim the distinction of 
exceeding all other persons in stupidity because I 
am conscious of knowing more than all the paper 
In the world will print. However, as I am not 
sufficiently vain to claim any such distinction, my 
modesty leads me to believe that there Is some 
sort of a misunderstanding Involved here. And 
the explanation that I shall offer Is that while here- 
tofore there has been abroad the notion that the 
truth Is something too subtle for the human mind 
to grasp, I take the stand that It Is sometimes too 
obvious to attract our attention, and that In look- 
ing for the mote we may be overlooking the beam. 

Naturally the reader will be apt to believe that 
some light could be thrown on the question by re- 
ferring to a dictionary. But this idea In Itself 
serves to bring before us no less than a whole 
series of truths too obvious to attract our atten- 
tion. It Is true, first, that there Is a book devoted 
to the definition of words; secondly, that If we 

52 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

wish to refer to it we must fetch It; thirdly, that we 
must look for truth under t; fourthly, that t comes 
after s, and so on. Here the critics may say that 
it is only making sport of the conception of truth 
to use such elementary ideas to illustrate it. But 
are the things I have mentioned not truths? And 
can there be two opinions in regard to any of 
them? Let us not look to the extreme end of the 
universe for the things that are so near at home. 

As for the connection between this and our 
problem, it is, namely, that when we are con- 
fronted by two opposite statements it must either 
so happen that neither can be proved to be true at 
the time and place, or that one of them can be 
proved to be true and the other untrue. And my 
contention is that when the latter is the case it will 
be invariably found that the untruthful statement 
results from the denial of facts as obvious and 
elementary as any of those mentioned above, it 
matters not how broad and comprehensive the 
subject may be. Perhaps this statement will be 
regarded as too dogmatic, and if it can be proved 
to be so I shall be only too glad to modify it In 
accordance with the evidence. At any rate, this 
would not serve to change my plan of depart- 
mental management except to the extent of 
strengthening it; for, insofar as that plan is con- 

53 



THE people's government 

cerned, it does not contemplate giving the sub- 
ordinate the authority to take issue with his boss 
unless he is capable of showing that the latter re- 
fuses to recognize an elementary fact. 

This, however, will be all that is required in 
the interest of universal progress from the stand- 
point of efficiency; for such progress is simply 
dependent upon the adoption of improvements in 
methods and devices when they have reached the 
stage at which their denial can be no longer main- 
tained on a rational basis. Heretofore it has 
been customary to pardon such denial on the score 
of conservatism, although it is evident that when 
conservatism reaches such a stage it can only be 
regarded as bona fide lying. In respect to the mo- 
tive for lying over matters of that nature, we need 
look no further than to the fact that the boss will 
be reluctant to acknowledge that a subordinate 
knew something that he did not know. 

However, when I proceed from truth to opinion, 
I find that I am leaping to the opposite extreme ; 
for while I look upon the idea of truth as a very 
elementary affair, that is, so far as It pertains to 
our problem, I regard that of opinion as one of the 
most, if not the most, complicated of all our con- 
ceptions, when regarded from the same point of 

54 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

view. As for truth, this of course may be viewed 
from two sides, for It has a metaphysical as well 
as a physical significance; and I have refrained 
from calling attention to Its metaphysical aspect 
because this Is a matter apart from our problem. 
But I may well afford to do so, because truth In 
Its metaphysical sense Is so essentially different 
from truth In Its physical sense that no explanation 
is required to Indicate whether we are referring 
to the one or the other. For example, what is 
there in common between the two questions: " Is 
there a personal God?" and "Does water run 
downhill?" 

On the other hand, the difficulty with the word 
opinion Is that while, like truth, it has not only 
a physical, but also a metaphysical, significance, 
there Is nevertheless this difference between them 
that we are In the habit of using " opinion " In such 
a way that there may be nothing in the context to 
enable us to distinguish the physical from the meta- 
physical aspect. There Is perhaps no other term 
that brings the metaphysical so lightly Into play. 

From the point of view of our problem, I 
should define an opinion as a judgment, or per- 
haps rather an inference, based on facts acquired 
as the result of personal experience, or of study- 
ing the results of the experiences of others, or 

5S 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

both. But opinions differ from our elementary 
truths in that they are lacking in certainty to such 
an extent that the converse, so far from being irra- 
tional, may be true; and where this is not the 
case the alleged opinions are not at the time mere 
opinions, for they have the validity of truths. 
Again, during the course of evolution facts loom 
up that serve to convert opinions into truths. 

Thus far the coast is clear; for what I have 
mentioned does not extend beyond the mere com- 
monplace. But this tells only one side of a two- 
sided tale, and the difficulties are to be found on 
the other. The side that I have given has been 
the one that may be variously designated as the 
theoretical, or academic, or universal, or imper- 
sonal, and the other as the practical, or non-acad- 
emic, or individual, or personal. 

If the difference between these two sides does 
not at once appear obvious to the reader, he can- 
not fail to appreciate my meaning when I call his 
attention to the fact that a distinction must be 
made between the opinion at which the individual 
has arrived as a result of his observations, studies, 
and reflections, on the one hand, and the opinion 
that he gives to those with whom he has business 
or official relations. The opinion he gives ap- 
pears in the form of a statement, which is clearly 

56 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

a physical manifestation. But the opinion he has 
is purely subjective, unknowable to any one but 
himself, and therefore can only be classed with 
the metaphysical ideas. That is, you cannot know 
what I think about a proposition concerning which 
there is a reasonable doubt any more than you 
can know whether there is or is not a personal 
God. You can only know what I tell you that 
I think in regard to it. My statement merely in- 
dicates what I want you to think that I think of 
it; and whether it represents what I really think, 
or just the reverse, or a compromise between the 
two, you cannot know. Therefore your only guide 
to my thoughts is the statement which purports 
to be my opinion. But if the spirit of fair play 
is to prevail, this must be recognized to the extent 
that when a controversy arises between two indi- 
viduals, judgment must be passed not upon the 
basis of their relative standings as individuals, but 
only upon that of the relative values of the state- 
ments of the two parties, irrespective of their 
wealth or rank or reputations as thinkers, the only 
basis upon which the judiciary may claim a raison 
d^etre. 

If the opinion I give represents a sincere ac- 
count of the opinion I have, the statement is 
worthy of being regarded as truthful even if it Is 

57 



THE people's government 

not strictly speaking a truth, and, contrariwise, 
untruthful even if it should subsequently turn out 
to be a truth. But aside from the question of 
truthfulness we have that of competence. For 
granting that the statement made by an individual 
is truthful, the question then still remains whether 
or not that particular individual is sufficiently con- 
versant with the facts to have an enlightened opin- 
ion upon it. It is just here that the people gen- 
erally are in the habit of going astray by reason 
of the assumption that the opinions expressed by 
persons of higher standing are to be regarded as 
uniformly more worthy of credence than those 
expressed by persons of lower standing, whether 
from the standpoint of wealth, official rank, cul- 
ture, knowledge, or intelligence. 

But putting aside all considerations except those 
of education and intelligence, and granting that 
the minds of those who are superior in official 
rank are uniformly superior to the minds of any 
of their subordinates, a concession which in itself 
exceeds the limits of the rational, is it possible for 
any sane individual to go so far beyond this con- 
cession as really to believe that there is not a single 
topic upon which it is possible for a subordinate 
to be better posted than his boss? Of course 
it is not. Indeed, logically, the truth would 

58 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

rather be the other way round, so that we should be 
sticking more closely to the rational by taking the 
stand that there was scarcely any topic upon which 
at least one out of a large number of subordinates 
was not better posted than his boss. This is the 
case for the reason that the subordinate's range of 
activity is ordinarily a great deal narrower than 
that of the boss, thus affording him an opportunity 
to become that much more familiar with the de- 
tails. 

Thus, while heretofore society has been in the 
habit of giving more credence to opinions ex- 
pressed by bosses than to those expressed by sub- 
ordinates, I am rather Inclined to take the other 
side. But, however this may be, I think I have 
said sufficient to indicate that if we are desirous 
of giving the truth the right of way over discipline, 
we must adjust our minds to the idea that it is not 
the authors of the statements, but the statements 
themselves, that must be considered on their mer- 
its. It Is only that I do not contemplate giving 
to subordinates the authority to take Issue with 
their bosses except In such Instances in which they 
are capable of proving that the decrees of the 
latter are contrary to the facts. It Is therefore not 
a question of opinion against opinion, but one of 
truth against untruth, that concerns us here; for 

59 



THE people's government 

where the truth is not clear I believe in giving the 
views of the boss the right of way. 

So much for opinion. Let us now direct our 
attention to the group of words which revolve 
around the conception of practicality. And here 
readjustments are surely in order; for these terms 
have come to be employed in such conflicting ways 
that their usage now-a-days can only be regarded 
as a travesty. 

To begin with, let us take the word most closely 
aUied to the term opinion, namely, theory, the 
bond of union between the two lying in the cir- 
cumstance that like ^' an opinon " so " a theory " 
may be defined as not a fact. On the other hand, 
however, there is this difference between them, 
that while an opinion is partly a subjective or per- 
sonal and partly an objective or impersonal affair, 
a theory is wholly an objective or impersonal af- 
fair, being intended to be received on its merits 
without regard to its authorship. 

What I have stated will suffice to indicate that 
although opinion and theory are in common par- 
lance often used interchangeably, they neverthe- 
less belong to different categories of thought. 
But having differentiated them in this way, and 
directing our attention to theory, we cannot pro- 

60 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

ceed a single step without becoming involved in all 
sorts of contradictions. 

From the standpoint of our problem it is in- 
teresting to note, in the first place, that a theory, 
like an opinion, can only manifest itself as a state- 
ment, so that when we judge by appearances alone 
there is nothing to indicate whether it is the one 
or the other. Then the affair is further compli- 
cated by the fact that both truth and untruth as 
well can only appear as statements. Consequently, 
whenever a statement which does not represent a 
self-evident truth or untruth looms up before us, 
it is impossible for us to know at a glance whether 
it is a truth, an untruth, an opinion, or a theory, 
a condition which has a direct bearing on the re- 
lation between the boss and the subordinate. This 
will be appreciated when it Is borne in mind that 
dogmatic statements made by bosses are ordinarily 
accepted as truths or facts, while counter-state- 
ments when made by subordinates are ordinarily 
looked upon as untruths or theories. The ques- 
tion of opinion and counter-opinion never comes 
up In the relation between bosses and subordinates, 
because the latter are not entitled to express their 
views at all when these are avowedly mere opin- 
ions. This Is as it should be; and if I were the 
ruler of the universe I should issue a decree to 

6i 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

the effect that the first offense in that direction 
should be punished by a reprimand or a fine, and 
the second offense by discharge. My maxim 
would be that the subordinate had no right to op- 
pose the boss unless he should catch him in a de- 
liberate lie; but I should punish deliberate lying 
on the part of bosses by discharge for the first 
offense. 

But putting aside the moral aspect of the prob- 
lem and confining our attention to the logical 
alone, the contradictions involved In the concep- 
tion of the term- theory begin to come into view 
when we contrast its particular with its general 
sense. Thus, for example, the reader will recog- 
nize that in the case of opinion a contrast of this 
nature is absolutely without significance ; for to de- 
clare that an opinion was not a fact would mean 
exactly the same thing as to declare that opinion 
was not fact. On the other hand, when we play 
the same trick with the word theory, we find an 
entirely different state of affairs, although this 
does not appear to have been generally recognized. 
For while it is true that a theory is not a fact, 
nothing could be more absurd than a declaration 
to the effect that theory was not fact; for theory 
in its general sense is synonymous with science, the 
characteristic feature of which Is its fidelity to 

62 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

facts. In brief, theory is a blanket word which 
covers all literature pertaining to any sphere of 
knowledge, including, in the first place, all known 
laws a-nd fundamental principles ; secondly, all the 
facts recorded by all the workers within that 
sphere; and, thirdly, all the recorded opinions or 
views upon questions concerning which positive 
knowledge has not yet been attained. 

As for the bearing of the contrast upon our 
problem, this becomes evident when we look to 
the derivatives of the word, namely, theorist, the- 
orizer, and theoretical, which, both analogically 
and etymologically, are extremely delusive. For 
example, what is a botanist or a zoologist? The 
dictionary tells us that he is a student of, or one 
versed in, or a specialist in, botany or zoology. 
But when we refer to a person as a theorist, do 
we intend to convey the impression that he is 
versed in the theory of any particular subject, 
meaning by this that he is familiar with the funda- 
mental principles, the literature, and other data 
pertaining to It? Not at all; for a person so 
versed is classed as a student, a scholar, a scientist, 
a specialist, or an expert, as the case may be. The 
truth Is that when we speak lightly of a theorist, 
we do not mean one who has a thorough knowl- 
edge of his subject, but one who is regarded as 

63 



THE people's government 

Incapable of recognizing the difference between a 
theory and a fact, or who is incapable of seeing 
the folly of his views, and therefore deserves to 
be classed as a mental delinquent. The confusion 
that manifests itself here is played as a trump 
card by bosses in the way of an effort to ridicule 
those of their subordinates who have become suf- 
ficiently conversant with the facts through study 
to feel competent to take issue with their bosses 
on questions of fact. For the latter make it their 
business to convey the Impression to others that 
persons who read up the literature of their sub- 
ject lose their natural power to distinguish between 
a theory and a fact. 

If we look at this question from a practical 
point of view, it will be recognized that there are 
really three different varieties of persons who are 
to be classed as theorists. In the first place, we 
have those who answer the above description, that 
Is, persons who are In the habit of spinning out 
theories that are either out of harmony with known 
facts or have no practical bearing whatever. Sec- 
ondly, there are the persons who construct theories 
on the basis of known facts with a view to their 
application to fields In which they have not yet 
been utilized. It Is theorizing of this sort that 

64 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

ultimately results in the various forms of discov- 
ery and Invention. In truth, nearly all the great 
Ideas have their Inception In a mere flight of the 
fancy as to how known phenomena may be util- 
ized In new ways. And, thirdly, we have the In- 
dividuals who are dubbed theorists by persons who 
have an object In causing others to believe that 
they are lacking In common sense, so that their 
statements may be looked upon as unworthy of at- 
tention. But this object Is always present when 
subordinates are too honest to cater to the wishes 
of unscrupulous bosses. Sometimes these public 
servants do have Impossible schemes, but this is 
by no means invariably the case; and whether or 
not this Is so In any particular instance Is in itself 
a question of facts. In view of what I have men- 
tioned It is evident that the term theorist stands 
for so many conflicting Ideas as to be unworthy 
of being credited with any definite meaning; so 
that if the truth is to prevail In controversies be- 
tween bosses and subordinates but one guide to a 
correct decision is at hand. This is, namely, the 
nature of the statement and that of the counter- 
statement, each of which must then be considered 
on its merits. 

Now when we turn from theorist to theoretical, 
it would be natural to suppose that we should be 

65 



THE people's government 

Still remaining as much within a related sphere of 
ideas as we are when we turn from botanist to 
botanical. This conception, however, will not 
hold on analysis; for the two words are no more 
closely related than theory in its particular sense 
is related to theory in its general sense, from 
which, in fact, they are respectively derived. To 
appreciate this it will be simply necessary to bear 
in mind that when we speak of a theorist we do 
not think of one who is given to the study of 
theory, but to one who is given to the construction 
of theories, while when we speak of a person who 
has enjoyed a theoretical training, we do not think 
of one who has been taught the art of constructing 
theories, which is something that cannot be taught, 
but of a person who has studied in the class-room 
and the library what others have observed and 
thought, thus acquiring the benefit of universal 
in contradistinction to individual experience. 

Another strange delusion exists in the traditional 
conception of the relation between theory and the- 
oretical, on the one hand, and practice and prac- 
tical, on the other. Upon this point Hamilton 
says: "The terms theory and theoretical are 
properly used in opposition to practice and prac- 
tical; in this sense they were exclusively employed 

66 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

by the ancients; and in this sense they are almost 
exclusively employed by the continental philoso- 
phers." 

To my mind this quotation is of interest par- 
ticularly from an evolutionary point of view, be- 
cause it shows that while those terms were used 
exclusively by the ancients as opposites, the una- 
nimity was no longer maintained among philoso- 
phers in Hamilton's day. And taking his state- 
ment as it stands, the explanation is to be found 
in the fact that after the advent of science they 
could be no longer regarded in the light of oppo- 
sites, because, from a scientific standpoint, they 
are symbolic of mutual support. 

As for theory and practice, the one represents 
experience and the other reflection, which, so far 
from being opposed, travel together like the two 
feet in walking, or are connected as intimately as 
the alternate bricks in a wall. As a result of ex- 
perience we acquire Ideas, while the ideas thus ac- 
quired give us the ability to see things more ac- 
curately, and therefore to learn that much more 
from our experiences, and so on toward a greater 
degree of perfection. Therefore the notion that 
theory does not improve practice, or that a theoret- 
ical education does not form a very essential part 
of a practical education, is absurd. As the truth 

67 



THE people's government 

of this Is so evident, it might be supposed that no 
sane person would ever think of denying it. But 
this again is a delusion resulting from the fact that 
there are two sides to the question. 

Now while it will be generally conceded that 
one who reflects upon the results of his efforts will 
make more improvement than one who labors with- 
out reflection, we are nevertheless still too much 
dominated by the fallacy that reflection has no 
value unless it is based on the experiences of the 
individual himself; for the vast majority of per- 
sons are still under the impression that one per- 
son cannot learn from the experiences of others. 
The fact is, however, that of a thousand and one 
Ideas In our minds, but one has been acquired as 
the result of our individual experiences, while the 
thousand represent the experiences of others. In- 
deed, If we did not profit by the observations and 
reflections of others in that proportion, more or 
less, we should still be in an uncivilized state. 
Practical people have no respect for the views of 
theorists, although they are sufiiclently benevolent 
to humor them to the extent of using electric 
lights, telephones, elevators, automobiles, trains, 
steamships, the telegraph wire, wireless teleg- 
raphy, and other visionary things of that ilk. 

Next, as for theoretical being opposed to prac- 
68 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

deal, such a supposition would convey the notion 
that theoretical and practical knowledge, so far 
from traveling hand In hand, represented in fact 
opposing armies. But If so the logical conclu- 
sion would necessarily be that the study of books 
tended to weaken the powers of observation. This 
Is actually claimed by bosses who do not want their 
subordinates to become too enlightened. Perhaps 
the bosses are right. But If so are we sane In con- 
tending that we are a practical people so long as 
we continue to lend our support to schools, uni- 
versities, and libraries? And if this question 
seems ridiculous, does It not seem equally ridic- 
ulous to declare that theoretical knowledge does 
not deserve to be placed In the category of prac- 
tical knowledge? This simply shows again how 
essential it is in the interest of universal progress 
to revise our Ideas as to the meaning of terms 
that have a bearing upon efficiency. 

Next, let us consider the word practical, which 
Is perhaps more competent than any other In the 
entire vocabulary to Illustrate the absurdities In 
verbiage when carried to their logical conclusion; 
for there is none that more openly stands for op- 
posite Ideas with nothing in the context to show 
whether it Is Intended to convey a certain mean- 

69 



THE people's government 

ing or the reverse. And what can we make of a 
term that may be defined as both yes and no, with 
nothing In the context to help us out? As for em- 
ploying the same words to express opposite ideas 
or opposite words to express the same ideas, there 
Is nothing unusual about that; and In view of the 
paucity of terms It Is perfectly legitimate to do 
so when the sense serves to prevent any misunder- 
standing. For example, is there anything am- 
biguous about the statement that the train ran 
fast until it stuck fast in a snow drift? Or does 
it make any difference whether I say that a factory 
was going to shut down or shut up ? 

As for the direct bearing of the term upon our 
problem, this Is Illustrated by the refusal on the 
part of a boss to adopt a suggestion from a sub- 
ordinate on the score that the idea Is not practical. 
To most persons this will suffice to serve as a sat- 
isfactory explanation, because most persons are 
as much In the habit of bewaring of anything that 
the boss labels as such as they are of a mad bull. 
This, however. Is simply owing to the fact that 
they do not stop to consider that the subordinate 
would not have made the suggestion if he had not 
had reason to believe that it was practical. And 
the logic of this is that the question of practicality 
simply resolves itself Into one of facts. That is, 

70 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

whether or not the suggested Idea Is practical can- 
not be decided by the boss arbitrarily any more 
than any other question of facts which In the ulti- 
mate analysis will resolve itself into one of ve- 
racity. 

In regard to the contradictions involved In the 
term, these may be perhaps most aptly Illustrated 
by taking as examples the three Ideas of a prac- 
tical boss, a practical subordinate, and a practical 
device or method, respectively. When we speak 
of a device or method as being practical, we mean, 
of course, that It is one which Is capable of doing 
Its work efficiently; and it is this that creates the 
Impression generally that practicality Is more or 
less synonymous with efficiency. But when we 
speak of a practical boss, do we necessarily refer 
to one who directs his efforts toward seeing that 
the work entrusted to his care Is performed effi- 
ciently? Not at all, for the boss who concentrates 
his attention upon the performance of his duties 
In any such manner Is not regarded as a practical 
man, but as an Idealist. The truth Is that the prac- 
tical boss Is one who understands how to take ad- 
vantage of the opportunity to profit by the confi- 
dence reposed In him by others without getting 
caught; while the question of efficiency does not 
really concern him at all. And It Is for this rea- 

71 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

son that the service is the least efficient when per- 
formed under the direction of bosses who from 
the standpoint of pohtics have the reputation of 
being the most practical. As for the subordinates, 
it is not necessarily the most efficient among them 
who acquire the reputation of being the most prac- 
tical ; for this distinction is won by those who best 
understand how to accommodate themselves to 
the conditions of their environment, that is, by 
those who are saints in the company of saints and 
sinners in the company of sinners. The practical 
subordinate does as he is told, and like the faith- 
ful proof-reader follows his copy even when he is 
obliged to jump out of a fourth story window after 
it. He keeps his own counsel; never has any- 
thing to suggest; and before all he steers clear of 
any and all things that could possibly throw him 
into a controversy with his boss. The device, 
then, is practical in proportion to its efficiency; the 
boss in proportion to his ability to utilize his op- 
portunities to profit at the expense of others; and 
the subordinate in proportion to his disposition to 
obey orders and keep his own views to himself. 

What I have stated will suffice to show that the 
conception of practicality may be viewed from two 
different standpoints, the one being personal and 
the other impersonal; personal practicality being 

72 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

represented by the idea of being successful In ac- 
quiring wealth or rank, irrespective of the methods 
employed to reach the goal, and impersonal prac- 
ticality by the Idea of rendering efficient service, 
irrespective of the conception of reward or pun- 
ishment. The question then Is whether the ap- 
pellation of practical shall be given to the individ- 
ual who succeeds In acquiring wealth or rank with- 
out performing any service that will accrue to the 
benefit of society, or to the one who accomplishes 
things that do accrue to the benefit of humanity 
without a thought as to the quid pro quo. As a 
result of tradition we have acquired the habit of 
classifying those who center their thoughts in 
self-advancement as practical and those who cen- 
ter them in the performance of their duty or on 
social advancement as idealists or theorists. But 
are not the thoughtful writers, the inventors, and 
the reformers more practical members of society 
than those who win rank and fortune by taking 
advantage of their fellow men? If a great In- 
ventor should never receive any profits from his 
Inventions, would this justify us In declaring that 
his Inventions were not practical? 

That I am not the first to recognize that the term 
has opposite meanings is proved by the manner in 
which the dictionaries try to define it. While, 

75 



THE people's government 

for example, the Standard, definition 2, Informs 
us that practical means " unscrupulous; as a prac- 
tical politician," definition 5 tells us that It means 
" manifested In practice, as practical religion." 
And this version Is followed by a quotation from 
"Pilgrim's Progress," which says: "The soul 
of religion is the practical part." Are we to 
judge from this that the soul of religion is its 
unscrupulous part? Or does not all this rather 
leave us in the dark as to whether practicality Is 
something desirable or undesirable, as in the case 
of the alleged enlightenment we get from the defi- 
nition of ambition in the same dictionary? For, 
while definition 2 tells us that " ambition " means : 
" An eager desire or steadfast purpose to achieve 
something commendable or that which is right in 
itself," what are we to make of this when it is 
preceded by this quotation from Nordhoff: 
" Teach yourself to despise ambition; it is one of 
the meanest of passions." Are we to learn from 
it that the desire to do right because It Is right is 
one of the meanest of passions, or that our vo- 
cabulary is in need of reform? 

In view of what I have mentioned it is evident 
that we are in need of so readjusting our minds as 
to the meaning of practicality that we may be pre- 
vented from falling into the error of confusing per- 

74 



NEEDED READJUSTMENTS IN TERMS 

sonal success with working efficiency. Thus, while 
an individual may be more successful than the 
average because he Is more efficient, It must be re- 
membered that his greater success may also be due 
to factors that have no direct bearing on working 
efficiency, such as luck in becoming placed in a suc- 
cessful environment, or in making Investments that 
turn out successfully, or again because he may be 
more unscrupulous. And, contrariwise, while an 
individual may be less successful than the average 
because he is less efficient, It may also be that he is 
so for reasons that have no bearing on his efficiency 
whatever. This is very well illustrated by the 
fact that so many of those who have been promi- 
nent factors in raising society to a higher plane of 
efficiency have themselves been unable to earn 
their salt. These have assisted in paving the way 
for an increase in earnings or a decrease in costs 
that can only be estimated In terms of billions, 
while they themselves have remained poor. 

As for my plan of departmental management, 
it had Its inception simply in the fact that the ideas 
which have the most practical value are so fre- 
quently held by persons who have the reputation of 
being the least practical among a group of work- 
ers. And my suggestion in regard to the estab- 
lishment of an efficiency court has no object in 

75 



THE people's government 

view other than that of giving the lowly as well as 
those in high station an opportunity to tell to an 
impartial tribunal just why they claim that the 
methods and devices suggested by them are more 
efficient than those they are commanded to use. 
In the interest of universal progress in general, and 
in that of fair play to subordinates in particular, 
then, it is incumbent upon us to adopt the view 
that practicality has no legitimate meaning other 
than that of efficiency, so that when a boss de- 
clares that a suggested method or device is not 
practical, it must be taken to mean that he does 
not regard it as efficient, a declaration, however, 
which in turn must be looked upon as a question of 
facts, and decided on its merits by an impartial 
tribunal. 



76 



CHAPTER IV 

PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

Now when we direct our attention to the term 
practicality In Its relation to efficiency, we have by 
no means clear sailing, because practicality has not 
only an absolute, but also a comparative, meaning. 
Thus, In the first place. Is the apparatus, method, 
or person A capable of doing this or that piece of 
work at all? And, secondly. Is A capable of do- 
ing It as well as or better than B or Incapable of 
doing It as well? 

That an entity which Is incapable of doing at 
all what It attempts to do is not practical Is self- 
evident. If a machine that Is heavier than air 
cannot be made to fly. It is naturally a fool only 
who will call It a practical flying machine. But 
here the element of change is brought into play; 
for a machine of that nature which cannot be made 
to rise from the ground to-day may perhaps be 
made to do so to-morrow, and to stay in the air 
the day after to-morrow, and therefore become 
practical in time. Then after it has once demon- 

77 



THE people's government 

strated its ability to fly for a more or less substan- 
tial period, it is the fool only who will declare that 
it cannot be made to fly. 

This much, which illustrates the conception of 
practicality from the absolute standpoint, is too 
clear to require further comment. From the rela- 
tive point of view, however, the conception is by 
no means as simple as this, because confusion is 
thrown into the camp from the fact that the no- 
tion includes not only that of evolution, but that 
of devolution as well, in the sense of falling be- 
hind in the race when superseded by something 
better. What I have in mind here is the idea 
that at least in most instances the things that are 
of use to us from a mechanical standpoint are 
characterized by the three stages that may be 
termed: (i) the not yet satisfactory; (2) the 
satisfactory; and (3) the no longer satisfactory, 
which would correspond to the conceptions of the 
not yet practical, the practical, and the no longer 
practical. 

In brief, the satisfactory or practical stage be- 
gins when a new thing has been developed to the 
point where from the standpoint of efficiency it is 
capable of competing on an equal footing with 
other things in the field that are intended to ac- 
complish the same purpose under the same condi- 

78 



PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

tions; and it ends when after having reached its 
maximum something new with greater latent effi- 
ciency has been developed to the point where it 
has succeeded in surpassing this maximum; the 
newcomer then remaining the practical thing until 
it is surpassed by another in the same manner. It 
is therefore an error to believe that a thing is prac- 
tical simply because it is capable of doing the work 
for which it is intended. 

That a more efficient will eventually replace a 
less efficient device is obvious from the fact that 
if this did not occur there would be no such thing 
as universal progress, although a long time always 
elapses before the replacement is complete, be- 
cause a change Is never effected except through the 
adoption of the superior device by one individual 
or group of Individuals after another. Here the 
question In which we are Interested is that of de- 
termining whether It Is those who are among the 
first to fall in line or those who hold back until 
they are compelled by the conditions to do so that 
are to be regarded as the more practical. If the 
reader should regard this as a foolish question he 
would be laboring under a delusion, because while 
a priori it is natural to look upon the former as 
such, the fact is that our ambiguous verbiage 
throws so much confusion Into the camp that the 

79 



THE people's government 

question cannot be satisfactorily answered unless 
it is analyzed in the light of both intellectual and 
moral considerations. 

From the intellectual point of view the am- 
biguity becomes obvious when we bear in mind 
the distinction that is made in business between 
the scientific and the practical man. By a scien- 
tific man is meant one who believes in basing his 
views on the results of universal experience, and 
by a practical man one who believes in relying 
primarily on the results of his own experiences. 
This distinction as I see it should be Interpreted 
not so much in the light of a difference In early 
training as In that of mental attitude; because we 
know from observation that a scientific training 
does not necessarily make the Individual broad- 
minded or the absence of It narrow-minded, for 
these qualities are born rather than made. The 
guiding star of the scientific mind Is Investigation, 
and the zenith of Its philosophy standardization, 
while the guiding star of the so-called practical 
man Is his personal judgment, based partly on in- 
accurate observation, and partly on his own In- 
stincts or Intuitions. The former Is a truth seeker 
and the latter a slave to his whims and conceit. 

In view of what has been mentioned the answer 
to our question has become self-evident, because 

80 



PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

under such conditions It Is as natural for the sclen- 
tlfically-mlnded individuals to precede the prac- 
tically-minded ones in abandoning the less in favor 
of the more efficient devices as it is for water to 
run down hill. The range of vision of the prac- 
tical man is limited for the most part to that of 
his own environment, while that of the scientific 
man is practically unlimited, because it includes 
not only his own environment, but that of his con- 
temporaries as well, so that he becomes cognizant 
of developments of which the practical man re- 
mains in Ignorance. Indeed the ignorance of in- 
numerable practical men who are regarded by the 
unsophisticated as oracles would furnish food for 
fairy tales galore. 

An important element to be considered in con- 
nection with the idea of a change in two directions 
is that from a strictly universal point of view 
there is but one thing which is always up to date, 
and that Is the present day. But a puzzling fea- 
ture in regard to time, and one that has a very es- 
sential bearing on the element of progress, is that 
of determining whether yesterday is to be looked 
upon as the day before or behind to-day. Its 
practical significance manifests itself when we 
come to consider the question of leadership. The 
puzzle lies in the fact that when we refer to a for- 

8i 



THE people's government 

ward movement, as in a parade, we recognize that 
before indicates in front or ahead or in advance 
of. Thus, the officials came before the common- 
ers, or, again, the commoners came after the offi- 
cials. However, when we refer to time this order 
is completely reversed, because to-morrow, which 
is the day in front of us, is the day after this. But 
the contradiction becomes at once resolved when 
we conceive of a movement in opposite direc- 
tions, the one representing progress and the other 
time; progress being a forward and time a back- 
ward movement. There is, however, this differ- 
ence between the two forms of motion, that the 
forward movement is accomplished as a result 
of human effort, while the backward movement 
is accomplished against our will; time carrying us 
backward while we stand still, as on a moving plat- 
form. 

The philosophy of this Is that if we wish to 
protect ourselves against being carried backward 
by time, we are compelled to keep marching for- 
ward on the moving platform at a rate of speed 
equal to that at which It moves in a backward di- 
rection. It Is In this way only that it Is possible 
for us to keep our ideas up to date. Naturally, 
when I use this figure I intend that It shall be so 
interpreted as to convey the picture that there are 

82 



PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

innumerable moving platforms traveling at greatly 
varying rates of speed, corresponding to the na- 
ture of different ideas; some being capable of 
holding their own for a long period against all 
other competitors In the field, while others are 
superseded at a very rapid pace. In the former 
instances but little effort need be expended upon 
marching forward In order to keep up to date, 
while at the other extreme keeping up-to-date will 
call for continual hustle and bustle. 

If we look at the world from the above men- 
tioned standpoint, namely, that progress moves in 
a forward and time In a backward direction. It 
will be necessary for us to come to a clearer under- 
standing as to the meaning and value of experi- 
ence. The difficulty here Is again due to the fact 
that the term stands for different conceptions, but 
without adequate psychological differentiations. 
A proverb tells us that experience Is the best 
teacher. However, while In spirit It tells the 
truth. Its phraseology is entirely too vague to con- 
vey any definite meaning, although If modified in 
two directions it will. In my opinion, tell the truth 
literally as well as In spirit. As it stands It is 
lacking in both strength and breadth. The con- 
ception of experience being the best teacher is 
erroneous, because In fact it Is the only teacher. 

83 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

Therefore the proverb would be duly strength- 
ened if it should read: Experience is the only 
teacher. But this again is erroneous in that it 
conveys the impression that there is here a single 
teacher only, while in truth there is a staff of three 
teachers; and this is wherein it is lacking in 
breadth. 

The three teachers are : ( i ) practice, or learn- 
ing to do by doing; (2) personal observation and 
reflection in the course of one's practice, the ele- 
ments that serve to make it intelligent instead of 
purely mechanical; and (3) universal guidance, 
whereby one individual receives the benefit of the 
results of the activities and reflections of others, 
which represents the study of theory, and includes 
that form of investigation which gives us the sta- 
tistical knowledge that leads to standardization. 
These three conceptions would be represented by 
the propositions : ( i ) I learn to do by doing. 
This is the purely mechanical point of view, which 
is exemplified by length of service alone, as " I 
have had five years' experience in this or that line." 
(2)1 learn to do better by observing the different 
ways in which I attempt to do the same things and 
then comparing the results. This is the practical 
point of view. And (3) I learn to do best by 
studying how others in the same field are doing 

84 



PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

what I attempt to do, and then comparing my re- 
sults with theirs. This represents the scientific 
bent of mind, which seeks guidance in standards. 

These are the three conceptions of the mean- 
ing and value of experience. The only difference 
between scientific management, on the one hand, 
and unscientific or practical management, on the 
other, is that in the former guidance is sought in 
universal experience, while in the latter the views 
of the bosses alone are in control. The practical 
man does not by any means claim that he is unable 
to learn from others. On the contrary, he claims 
to be most reasonable In this respect. It is only 
that he finds that those who disagree with him are 
invariably in the wrong. 

An interesting question in this connection is that 
concerning the comparative values of knowledge 
and skill in their relation to working efficiency. 
From the standpoint of knowledge two things are 
required: (i) knowing what ought to be done 
under given conditions; and (2) knowing how 
the thing ought to be done in the light of the latest 
Information. Admitting that knowledge has no 
practical value unless It leads to doing, the ques- 
tion is whether or not it can be designated as prac- 
tical if the knower has had no personal experience 
in that particular line of work. In brief, if as a 

85 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

result of study I learn what ought to be done 
and how, can that knowledge be made of practical 
value to anybody unless I acquire the ability to do 
it myself? Upon this point opinions differ. Log- 
ically, however, the question will permit of but 
one answer, namely, that the practical value of 
my knowledge is not contingent upon my ability 
to do the work myself, because the same purpose 
will be served if I impart this information to one 
who happens to possess the ability to do it. Its 
value will then manifest itself in the form of in- 
creased efficiency on the part of the latter. 

If this is recognized, then it will be apparent 
that if B has the information it will be absolutely 
immaterial whether he has had more or less prac- 
tical experience than A or none whatever. Should 
human affairs be universally conducted on this prin- 
ciple then but little would be heard of antiquation, 
because the A's who were kept too busy with rou- 
tine matters to keep in touch with the times them- 
selves would resort to the procedure of maintain- 
ing a lookout by employing B's to watch for new 
developments, and to let them know when the day 
had arrived upon which it became advisable to 
change their methods and devices. But unfor- 
tunately the cause of progress here meets with an 
obstacle in the form of human nature, in that those 

86 



PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

who have the power to decide what shall be done, 
as well as those who have had experience in doing, 
are, at least for the most part, unwilling to follow 
the advice of such B's as I have indicated, upon 
whom they have become accustomed to look as 
theorists or dreamers. Here then we have an- 
other inversion in that those who are standing still 
believe themselves to be moving, while those who 
are moving forward are said to be dreaming. 

Another practical application of the same idea 
manifests itself when we come to consider the 
question of the relative values of the judgments 
of the older and younger in service. Thus, assum- 
ing that A and B are of equal intellectual caliber, 
and that they had both completed an equal techni- 
cal course, the former in 1880 and the latter in 
1 9 10, are we justified in concluding that on the 
whole the judgments of the former are necessarily 
of greater value in 19 11 because he has had 
thirty-one years' experience, while the latter has 
had but one year's experience or less? My an- 
swer is in the negative, because I maintain that the 
relative values of their judgments will be depen- 
dent both upon the nature of the question at issue 
and the use that the older In service has made of 
that additional period. If the latter happened to 
have the bent of mind that impelled him to keep 

87 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

moving forward at an adequate pace while time 
was carrying him backward, then on the whole his 
opinions would possess a greater value, because, 
in addition to being as well informed as the latter, 
he would have acquired an amount of worldly 
wisdom in the form of a knowledge of the tricks 
of the trade that the latter would not have had 
the opportunity to acquire. However, if he had 
failed to keep in touch with the times after his 
graduation in 1880, while material progress had 
been made in his line later, then there would be 
forms of knowledge, notably in respect to methods 
and devices, in which he would be not thirty years 
ahead of but thirty years behind the latter, and 
the value of their judgments would be reversed. 

It is often regarded as a joke that a newcomer 
in any given field should believe himself to be 
capable of giving advice to those who had been 
active in it for a generation or more. But the 
joke is really on the other side; because if he is in 
possession of the knowledge of the most recent 
developments, while the others had failed to keep 
in touch with the times, a mere glance at the situa- 
tion may suffice to tell the tale to the Inexperienced 
man. There is a proverb in English which tells 
us that gray hairs bring wisdom. But as against 
this there is one in German that reads: Kein 



PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

Esel so gross wie ein alter Esel. You pay your 
money and take your choice. 

So much for the relation of practicality to work- 
ing efficiency from the intellectual point of view. 
Let us now take a glance at its moral aspect, which 
differs from the intellectual in that it introduces 
an element which does not enter as a factor in the 
latter, namely, the selfish motive, that is, the mo- 
tive which leads the individual to seek guidance 
not in the light of truth, but in that of his own 
personal interests. While from a purely logical 
standpoint practicality and efficiency travel in par- 
allel lines in that, all other things being equal, the 
individual may be said to be the more practical 
the more he is on the lookout for new develop- 
ments in methods and devices, the parallelism no 
longer holds true in a uniform sense when self- 
interest enters as a factor. And the reason is 
that there are conditions under which self-interest 
and efficiency come into conflict in such manner 
that the individual serves his own interests best not 
when he endeavors to increase his efficiency, but 
when he does the reverse. In such instances there 
is an element that ranks above efficiency from the 
standpoint of practicality, and this is poHcy, which 
manifests itself differently under different condi- 
tions. 

89 



THE people's government 

There Is, however, but one situation of interest 
to us here, namely, that in which a subordinate who 
knows more than his boss is expected by the latter 
to act as if he knew less. And this situation al- 
ways arises when a boss is possessed of these two 
characteristics: (i) Love of power to the ex- 
tent of demanding implicit obedience to his com- 
mands; and (2) conceit to the extent of resenting 
the implication that he does not know it all. But 
when such a condition does obtain the subordinate 
cannot be obedient to his chiefs commands unless 
he steps backward from a more modern to a more 
antiquated position. In brief, if the boss demands 
that he be looked upon by his subordinates as their 
leader in thought as well as in rank, it is evident 
that those who are ahead of him in thought will 
fare better at his hands by pretending to be be- 
hind him and acting accordingly than they will if 
they are sufficiently true to their honest convictions 
to refuse to submit to his bigotry. No further 
comments are required to prove that from the 
standpoint of self-interest the individual may be 
placed in a position in which he will be more prac- 
tical if he suppresses his efficiency than if he at- 
tempts to develop it. This is particularly the case 
in our country, where official rank bears so very 
little relation to merit, and bossism reigns supreme. 

90 



PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

A point to be considered In this connection is 
that the retrogression In or suppression of effi- 
ciency on the part of a subordinate for a selfish 
reason is not under all conditions to be regarded 
as unethical, because the problem of the tangible 
in contradistinction to the intangible master here 
enters as a factor; and the difference is that from 
the standpoint of efficiency the law of compensa- 
tion acts differently in the two instances. For 
in the former the penalty for Inefficiency is paid 
by the person under whose direction the service 
is performed, while in the latter it Is paid by others. 
In brief, if the proprietor of a business tells an 
employee to do his work in a way that the latter 
knows to be more wasteful than need be, the em- 
ployee may be morally obligated to suggest a better 
way, but he is by no means morally obligated to re- 
fuse to waste after having made the suggestion, 
because the proprietor is privileged to waste if he 
chooses. But where there is no tangible master 
his place Is supplied by one who holds a position 
of trust; and his status differs from that of the 
proprietor in that he is specifically pledged to con- 
duct the affairs In his charge with the smallest pos- 
sible amount of waste. In such Instances, there- 
fore, the problem of efficiency has not only an 
economic but a moral bearing as well, because the 

91 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

individual in a position of this nature who does 
not do all in his power to eliminate waste is mor- 
ally guilty of a breach of trust. 

Naturally, as questions of morality belong to the 
category of the will, it follows that waste cannot 
be immoral unless it is voluntary, so that it would 
be unjust to class it as dishonest if it should be the 
result of ignorance. And as charity is always to 
be commended, we ought to be charitable enough 
to assume that no individual in a position of trust 
would ever be depraved to the extent of delib- 
erately commanding a subordinate to waste the 
property of his employer; and we should therefore 
train ourselves to believe that the command to 
waste is always given in ignorance. The logic of 
it is, then, that the immorality of the act is to be 
charged not against the official who commands, but 
against the subordinate who obeys, when he knows 
that in doing so he is committing a wrong. 

This, however, is not intended to imply that 
the subordinate who consciously does wrong under 
these conditions is necessarily to be held morally 
responsible for his immoral action. Thus, if the 
act is considered by itself, we are justified in con- 
cluding that it was his duty to refuse to obey the 
command. But when we come to consider the 
consequences of the refusal, we find ourselves 

92 



PRACTICALITY AND EFFICIENCY 

caught in a trap if we are too dogmatic as to this, 
because the refusal may result in a greater wrong, 
so that we are here confronted by the problem of 
the conflict of duties. What I have in mind is the 
fact that every individual is under obligation to 
earn a livelihood in order that he may not become 
a burden to society; and if his refusal should cost 
him his position, he may be committing a greater 
wrong by refusing to commit a dishonest act upon 
the command of his boss than by complying with 
his request. Consequently no rule on this score 
will hold, but every instance will have to be de- 
cided on its own merits. 

However, if the boss cannot be held morally 
responsible when he gives an improper command 
in ignorance, or the subordinate ethically accounta- 
ble if he consciously obeys a dishonest command 
in order to keep his family from want, are we 
therefore forced to conclude that there is no such 
thing as moral responsibility for wrongs done 
when labor is performed in groups in the absence 
of a tangible master? I answer emphatically in 
the negative, because this would leave out of con- 
sideration the fact that there were masters in the 
field even if they were not tangible. And in the 
ultimate analysis it will be found that the moral 
responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the in- 

93 



THE people's government 

tangible masters, that is, upon the shoulders of 
those who voluntarily confer upon an individual 
in a position of trust the power to command his 
subordinates to degrade themselves as a condition 
of service. 

As I see it, then, the unnecessary waste coinci- 
dent upon the conduct of public and corporate af- 
fairs IS due to the power voluntarily conferred 
by the intangible masters upon officials to prevent 
their subordinates from being sufficiently true to 
themselves to labor honestly for their daily wage. 
That the people do not confer such power upon 
the bosses with that intent is too evident to call 
for comment. What then is their object in doing 
so ? None whatever except to be true to the hypo- 
thesis that the person who is responsible for the 
results of labor should have the power to do it or 
have it done as he thinks best. However, while 
this theory is perfectly just, it is anything but just 
to apply it In this connection, because, as I have 
stated on a previous page, there is in the land of 
officialdom no such thing as responsibility for 
waste. Consequently, in this Instance, the result- 
ing condition represents power without responsi- 
bility, and this is despotism. 



94 



CHAPTER V 

RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

As for the element that renders the power des- 
potic, this is simply the result of the traditional 
belief that the individual who is selected as the 
leader in action is entitled to be looked upon as 
the leader in thought as well, which represents a 
most stupendous fallacy. To appreciate this it 
will be simply necessary to recognize that leader- 
ship in action may be conferred through election 
or appointment upon an individual whose qualifica- 
tions are very mediocre, while genuine leadership 
in thought results from merit alone. However, 
while all this is too well known to require further 
comment, why is it that from the beginning of 
time to the present day it has been the custom of 
society to ignore such facts, and act upon the 
principle that the brains follow the votes as com- 
merce follows the flag? But do we not act on 
that principle when in our daily practices we so 
invert things that while we may know that the man 
at the top is not there because he knows the most, 

95 



THE people's government 

we nevertheless feel obligated to give him credit 
for knowing the most because he is on top? 

To give an Individual credit for knowing more 
than he knows Is not necessarily condemnable, be- 
cause it is not only gracious to be courteous, but 
godly to be more generous than just. However, 
from the standpoint of academic honesty there are 
conditions under which such credit not only ceases 
to be either gracious or godly, but, on the contrary, 
must be looked upon as no less than satanic in its 
nature. And this is the case when the courtesy Is 
bestowed upon an individual at the expense of 
others without their consent, which is always the 
condition when It Is bestowed upon the chief of a 
group of workers. In brief, such is the law of 
compensation that we cannot give the chief the 
credit of knowing more than he knows without giv- 
ing the subordinate the credit of knowing less than 
he knows. But why resort to the extremity of 
calling this satanic? Simply because a policy of 
this nature cannot be followed without making 
sport of truth, and to make sport of truth is dia- 
bolical. If this is not clear It will become so when 
it is borne in mind that we cannot give an indi- 
vidual credit for knowing more than he knows un- 
less on occasions we resort to the expedient of per- 
mitting his statements to count as true when we 

96 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

know them to be untrue, and, vice versa, that we 
cannot give an individual credit for knowing less 
than he knows unless on such occasions we call his 
statements untrue when we know them to be true. 
The occasions to which I here refer specifically are 
those upon which a subordinate is sufficiently un- 
practical to value the truth more than his job, and 
therefore to rebel against the existing order of 
things to the extent of refusing to obey his boss 
when the latter asks him to do what he knows to be 
wrong. 

The question that arises here is that of deter- 
mining whether upon such occasions the subordi- 
nate should be discharged. Naturally if this ques- 
tion should be put to a class of children in the 
school room it would be unanimously answered In 
the negative, because academically society would 
side with the subordinate. But from a practical 
point of view the answer Is by no means so simple, 
because disobedience on the part of a subordinate 
in a group of workers cannot fail to exert a de- 
moralizing Influence upon his colleagues which may 
lead to disorganization. Regarding the devil's 
part In the game, does not this become manifest 
in the conception of the demoralizing influence of 
morality? 

But who Is to blame for such a condition? Is 

97 



THE people's government 

the subordinate to blame for producing discord by 
refusing to obey a wrongful command? If we 
accept the contradictory definitions and quotations 
of the dictionary to the effect that the desire to 
do right because it is right is one of the meanest 
of passions, then he must be looked upon as the 
culprit. However, as this logic will not be re- 
garded as respectable in respectable society, we 
shall have to exonerate the subordinate whose con- 
scientious scruples have gained a mastery over him. 
How society would answer the question if it should 
be put to a vote to-day is clear; for it would ap- 
pear to it that the boss was to blame in command- 
ing the subordinate to commit a dishonest deed. 
In truth, however, this would be fully as unjust as 
to blame the subordinate for demoralizing the 
service by refusing to be dishonest. The reason 
is that as their leader in thought It is his duty to 
direct his subordinates to do what he believes to 
be best. Then if he is not wise enough to recog- 
nize his own limitations, he may ask them in ig- 
norance to do what they know to be wrong, in 
which instance he surely Is not morally guilty. 

Indeed I am sufficiently charitable to go further 
and declare that we are not necessarily justified in 
regarding him as morally guilty even when he is 
aware that he is doing wrong, because we must 

98 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

consider not only the deed, but the temptation as 
well ; and if we put too much temptation in an in- 
dividual's way we cannot blame him for doing 
wrong any more than we can blame a chain for 
breaking if we place too great a burden upon it. 
Yet it is a matter of history that there is no form 
of temptation that can be compared to official 
power in the hands of a lover of power when he 
has no respect for truth or justice and his subjects 
are not protected by adequate means of redress. 
In such instances his mind becomes literally un- 
balanced in that his passions gain a mastery over 
his reason, and he is no longer morally accountable 
for his actions. Official power numbers among its 
prerogatives the privilege on the part of the in- 
cumbent to do unto others as others are not per- 
mitted to do unto him. But unless this privilege 
Is counterbalanced by a force of equal Intensity in 
favor of the subject, its exercise by those who are 
slaves to their passions is liable, even In the very 
centers of civilization, to lead to arbitrary deci- 
sions worthy of a Munchausen without overstep- 
ping the limits of the law. With us It has 
resulted in what has been termed government by 
bosses. 

In the ultimate analysis, then, the blame for the 
maintenance in our country of a condition under 

99 



THE people's government 

which morality frequently comes to be a cause of 
demoralization rests upon the shoulders of those 
who lead their officials into the inordinate tempta- 
tion of giving them the power to command their 
subordinates to do wrong without making adequate 
provision for the protection of those who refuse 
to do what they know to be wrong. However, 
this would all be changed by adopting the system 
of conducting the departments on judiciary prin- 
ciples. 

If the departments should be conducted on ju- 
diciary principles in such manner that every indi- 
vidual in the public service would be free to be as 
honest in the position of subordinate without preju- 
dice to his job or preferment as his nature bids him 
to be in the conduct of his private affairs, then 
from a moral standpoint alone the system would 
be worth inaugurating. However, the emancipa- 
tion of the subordinate is not the end of the system, 
but merely the means to a very much loftier end, 
namely, the emancipation of the reason from the 
domination of the will. The ultimate goal, there- 
fore, would be the triumph of the reason over the 
passions in the conduct of public affairs, and con- 
sequently the realization of the philosopher's 
dream in at least one field of activity. 

The emancipation of the reason from the will 

lOO 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

translated Into common parlance means simply 
that the truth Is to be given the precedence over all 
other considerations. What I refer to here Is 
truth not in the mystical sense, but as represented 
by statements of facts capable of verification by 
accepted standards of proof, as Indicated on pre- 
vious pages. But is It necessary to Inaugurate a 
new system of departmental management in order 
that such elementary truths as these may have the 
right of way over the will of those in power? 
This question may be answered most emphatically 
In the affirmative, and simply for the reason that 
official power in the traditional sense confers upon 
the incumbent the privilege of disregarding the ac- 
cepted standards of proof, and therefore of form- 
ing irrational judgments upon which his subordi- 
nates are expected to act, thus subjecting them to 
Irrational leadership. The only object I have In 
pleading for the establishment of the efficiency 
courts Is that of putting a check upon the chief 
w^hen he forms judgments that cannot be sus- 
tained without violating the accepted standards of 
proof. And if the opportunity for violating them 
Is eliminated, then obvious untruth and injustice 
as well as voluntary waste will be eliminated apace. 
My contention is then that every unjust decision 
is the result of a chain of reasoning which contains 

lOI 



THE people's government 

at least one step as irrational as the statement 
that water does not run down hill or that 
2 + 2 = not 4, although an analysis may be re- 
quired to bring that step to the light. I maintain 
as well that all unnecessary waste results from de- 
cisions of that nature, so that it would all be 
eliminated with the elimination of the irrational 
link. Now in view of this does it appear that I 
am making a great demand upon an enlightened 
society in asking it to grant to the subordinate 
merely the privilege of refusing to act upon the 
principle that two and two do not make four? Of 
course it does not, because the request is apparently 
so modest. But things are not always what they 
seem; and nothing can be more mistaken than the 
notion that the request is modest, because it can- 
not be granted without abandoning the traditional 
belief that the leader in action shall also enjoy the 
status of leader in thought, while this cannot be 
abandoned without a psychological revolution. 

As to just what I mean by leadership in thought 
in departmental management, it will suffice for me 
to mention that it would be represented by the 
statement: " You must believe what I tell you to 
believe, and act accordingly." Naturally, as no 
one can be forced to believe what he does not really 

102 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

believe, the enforcement cannot be extended be- 
yond the hypocritical stage of pretense, which 
causes the subordinate to lead a double life, that 
of the true and that of the subordinate self. But 
if the subordinate should be given the privilege 
of remaining sufficiently true to himself to refuse 
to act upon what he knows to be untrue, then it 
is evident that the boss would be deprived of the 
privilege of commanding him to believe what he 
tells him to believe, and therefore of his status of 
leader in thought. Under this arrangement the 
status of the boss would not be changed so far as 
leadership In action was concerned, because his 
executive and supervisory functions would remain 
unaltered. In that he would still have the power to 
issue orders to his subordinates and to insist upon 
their being obeyed. It is only that he would be 
deprived of the power to enforce the irrational, 
because the subordinates would have the power to 
offer resistance when they knew that the orders 
were indefensible in the light of the reason. But 
could not the subordinate be mistaken as to this? 
Not unless he had gone Insane, because his privi- 
lege of resisting would be limited to the sphere of 
demonstrable proof that could not be mistaken by 
one who was sane. 

103 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 

But how about the leader in thought? What 
kind of a person should we select to occupy that 
position when no longer occupied by the leader in 
action? The answer to this is very simple; for 
as no one is competent to do justice to it unless 
he possesses the two qualifications of omniscience 
and moral perfection, it will have to be abolished 
as a personal conception and its place supplied by 
something of a higher order, something which 
even the boss will be obliged to acknowledge as 
his superior. And this is the truth in the form of 
facts capable of verification by the two universally 
recognized standards of proof, namely, the evi- 
dence of the senses and the rules of simple arith- 
metic. In brief, what we need is to free ourselves 
of the conception of an official leader in thought, 
and adopt in its stead that of the leading thought. 
Yet this proposition is again revolutionary, be- 
cause it cannot be accepted unless we disregard the 
wealth, official rank, and personal influence of the 
sponsors and opponents of an issue that awaits our 
decision, while our habits of thought have trended 
in the opposite direction. But shall we worship 
the Golden Rule or the Golden Calf? 

The terms leader in action, leader in thought, 
and leading thought, as I have them in mind, may 
be expressed in the form of a figure, as follows: 

104 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 



Line // 




Line /// 


Leadership in Thought 


Leading thought 


E D C B 


A 


A B C D E 


Order Constant 


B 


Order Variable 




C 




> 
o* 


D 
E 





In this figure action is represented by the ver- 
tical line and thought by the two horizontal lines. 

From the standpoint of action the vertical rep- 
resentation is proper, because it conveys the im- 
pression of superiority and inferiority in official 
rank, an arrangement which is essential to the 
maintenance of discipline when individuals labor 
in groups toward the attainment of a specified end. 
And in regard to thought the horizontal repre- 
sentation is proper, because it conveys the im- 
pression of relativity from the standpoint of prog- 
ress. 

As for Lines // and ///, the former is intended 
to stand for the idea of leadership in thought and 
the latter for that of the leading thought. It will 
be noted that they differ in two particulars. In 

105 



THE people's government 

the first place, Line II is attached to Line I, while 
Line III is free. And, secondly, the order of suc- 
cession is different; for while in the former it is 
fixed according to rank, thus being merely a reflec- 
tion of Line I, in the latter it is intended to be 
shown both as Inverted and shifting; and as shift- 
ing it Is capable of arrangement in many different 
ways. But the fundamental difference between 
them Is that In Line II the merits of a proposi- 
tion are estimated on the basis of the official rank 
of its sponsor, while in Line III they are estimated 
on the basis of facts regardless of official rank. 

It must be remembered that In this connection 
the conception of merit refers to a single factor 
only, namely, the ehmlnatlon of unnecessary waste 
by the use of the most economical methods and de- 
vices known at the time ; it being naturally under- 
stood that this Is to be interpreted as Implying the 
most economical when all the conditions are con- 
sidered. And It is essential that this be borne in 
mind, because the bosses who are opposed to tak- 
ing suggestions from subordinates are accustomed 
to leading others to believe that this or that sug- 
gestion would not have been made If the subordi- 
nate had had sufficient brains to recognize that a 
method or a device which is the most economical 
under some conditions may be far from being so 

io6 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

under others. But the truth Is that we have here 
before us simply a question of facts In which as 
elsewhere each Issue must be decided on Its merits. 
In those Instances In which the boss Is capable of 
sustaining his contention without resorting to Ir- 
rational statements his plea as to conditions must 
be accepted as well founded. Otherwise, how- 
ever, his claim should be unceremoniously thrown 
out of court. 

At the present time we are still slaves to what Is 
technically known as the system; and the system 
means no more than that the Individual who Is 
placed officially above another In rank must be 
given the prerogative of looking upon himself as 
occupying a more advanced position In thought as 
well, and even In those Instances In which It Is self- 
evident that he Is no more familiar with the sub- 
ject than a new born babe. As for the absurdity 
of the situation, this Is carried to Its logical con- 
clusion among enlightened peoples no more fla- 
grantly than In our own country. For Is It not 
true that In the conduct of our public affairs we 
often Invert matters to the extent of conferring 
upon novices the ranks of A and B, as a result of 
which the C's, D's, and E's, who constitute the per- 
manent staff, and who have had opportunities to 
become specialists In their respective fields, are 

107 



THE people's government 

obliged to acquire their information not through 
individual or universal experience, but from the 
oracular statements of the ignorant? Personally 
I have always had my misgivings as for human 
beings being descended from monkeys. But 
when I reflect upon our system of departmental 
management I think my doubts are fully justified, 
because the evidence here seems to prove conclu- 
sively that we Americans at least have not yet de- 
scended. 

Line II, then, represents the inflexible system 
of boss rule, the system that causes us to regard 
the views of A as more trustworthy in every in- 
dividual instance than those of any other person 
in the organization. Thus, those methods and 
devices are the most economical which A declares 
to be such. This is not intended to imply that he 
will be continually called upon to assert his author- 
ity in a manner that will put his power to the test. 
It is only that when this does occur his declara- 
tions are given the right of way. Again, when 
the issue is one in which he is not directly inter- 
ested the prerogative devolves upon B, C, or D, 
that is, upon the person who occupies the highest 
official position among those who do desire to as- 
sert their authority in regard to it. But an essen- 
tial point to be noted in this connection is that even 

io8 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP ' 

when A does not assert himself directly, he never- 
theless usually does so indirectly by giving his 
moral support to a servant of higher as against 
one of lower rank, which is equivalent to self-as- 
sertion on his own part. 

The notion that A's statements should be 
credited with a greater value than those of B, C, 
D, and E combined, on all questions arising within 
the organization. Is naturally in Itself irrational. 
But the absurdity as it would appear from the pic- 
ture of Line II is but a mole hill as compared to a 
mountain when we come to consider the true con- 
ditions; and the reason is that the letters do not 
stand for single Individuals but for classes, the 
members of which increase numerically with the 
descent In the scale. Thus, while an organization 
has but one A, it may have, more or less, half-a- 
dozen B*s, tens of C's, hundreds of D's, and thou- 
sands of E's. But is It conceivable to any one 
with a grain of human intelligence that there 
should not be a single Individual among the thou- 
sands or tens of thousands of E's who does not 
know a single fact that Is unknown to one higher 
up? Of course It Is not, and for that reason it 
is not conceivable that any Intelligent Individual 
who is In favor of an honest government should 
continue to lend his support to the traditional 

109 



THE people's government 

system as illustrated by Line II after he had duly 
reflected upon the question. By this I do not in- 
tend to imply that the traditional system is disad- 
vantageous from a practical point of view, because 
I am not by any means convinced that honesty is 
the best policy. The only declaration that I care 
to make emphatically is that it is not honest. If 
we want an honest government we must stand by 
the man who is right although he may be but an 
E, and for that reason we must abolish Line II 
and adopt Line III in its stead. 

It will here be necessary for me to call at- 
tention to the technical position occupied by E, 
which IS not only unique in the scale of official 
rank, but extremely delusive and paradoxical as 
well. It IS unique because E differs from the 
others In that he has no official power ; his rank In 
this respect being merely on a par with that of 
the private citizen. Thus, In the capacity of an 
individual he Is, like the latter, governed by others 
without having any power to govern others In re- 
turn. Even D, who Is governed by A, B, and C, 
has at least sufficient Individual authority to dic- 
tate to E In all matters that those higher up are 
willing to leave to his judgment. And that the 
technical position of E Is both delusive and para- 
doxical is owing to the fact that while the absence 

no 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

of official power serves to keep him in the rank of 
the private citizens, it does not for that reason de- 
grade his status as an individual, but, on the con- 
trary, does just the reverse. As it is in the nature 
of democracy that those who govern shall do so by 
the consent of the governed, does it not follow 
that those who are governed must be looked upon 
as the masters of those who govern if a democracy 
is such in fact as well as in name ? Nor do I need 
any evidence in support of this view beyond the 
fact that our public officials are technically known 
not as the masters, but as the servants, of those 
who are governed. 

In the ultimate analysis, then, it is not in the 
public official, but in the private citizen, that the 
rulership is lodged under a democratic form of 
government. And when this idea is carried into 
the sphere of officialdom itself, we find things so 
inverted that It is not the official of higher rank 
who is the real master of one of lower rank, but 
just the reverse, the true boss being not the person 
who bosses, but the one who is bossed. Thus, In 
thinking of the relation between D and E we must 
adjust our minds to the notion that E Is not the 
servant, but the master, of D, the latter as pub- 
lic official being the servant of the citizen. But 
what is the nature of the relation between C and 

lU 



THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT 

D? It is exactly the same as that between D and 
E, although an explanation will be required to 
make this clear. Here the explanation lies in the 
fact that in a democracy the public employee who 
enjoys any official power whatever has a dual 
status, namely, that of public servant and that of 
private citizen. In situations in which he has 
power he is a servant, and in those in which he 
has none he is a citizen. As E has no power he 
is always acting in the capacity of a citizen. And 
as for D, in his status of boss to E he is a servant, 
while in that of subordinate to C he is a citizen, 
and as such his master. In his capacity of subor- 
dinate it is his duty to be obedient to the com- 
mands of his superior, but in that of private citi- 
zen it is his duty to see that the commands of his 
official superior are honest and rational. Then 
when he finds that they are not, it is his duty to 
protest and that of the people to lend him their 
support. 

The above conception of the relationship be- 
tween chief and subordinate is not only logical, 
but it has the additional advantage of presenting 
a picture of the Millennium in that it shows a con- 
dition under which the last would be the first and 
the first the last. But that it nevertheless fails to 

112 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

be Invulnerable follows from the circumstance that 
the argument Is based not on an established fact, 
but merely on an assumption, so that the validity 
of the conclusion Is contingent upon whether or 
not society Is willing to assume the major premise, 
which, while apparently an axiom, is In truth a 
debatable question. The assumption is, namely, 
that the public employee shall be entitled to take 
the same active interest in the cause of good gov- 
ernment as the private citizen is expected to take. 
But this is a debatable proposition, because active 
interest in the cause of good government implies 
two privileges which society may not deem it ex- 
pedient to confer upon those who occupy subor- 
dinate positions in the public service. These are, 
first, freedom in the expression of one's views on 
public Issues, whether in private conversations, on 
the rostrum, or in the press; and, secondly, the 
right to criticise public officials irrespective of their 
rank. As for the sentiment of the people upon 
this matter, it represents a bull of the most fla- 
grant variety, and for the simple reason that. while 
they believe that a member of the civil service 
should play the role of good citizen, they do not 
regard it as proper on his part to be sufficiently 
disloyal to his official superior to take a public 

113 



THE people's government 

Stand against him even when he is obviously in 
the wrong. Is this not a practical illustration of 
our little ditty: 

Mother, may I go in to swim ? 4 

Yes, my darling daughter. 
Hang your clothes on a hickory limb, 

But don't go near the water? 

As for the subordinate who desires to be 
honest, but is not permitted to be so, does he not 
remind us of the deserted wife who, while rocking 
the cradle with one foot, was wiping her tears 
with the other? 

We are told that the price of democracy is 
eternal vigilance ; and with this view I am heartily 
in accord. We are also told that the vigilance in 
our country will be inadequate until our citizens 
take more interest in the conduct of public af- 
fairs; and with this view I am not in accord, be- 
cause I believe that the difficulty does not lie in 
the lack of interest, as there seems to be an abun- 
dance of this, but in the failure to utilize to the 
best advantage that which already exists. How- 
ever, what we want is not a general sort of interest 
in public questions in general, but a definite interest 
in the individual questions as they arise; and the 
foundation of such interest, which is ordinarily 

114 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

referred to as intelligent, Is a knowledge of facts. 
But how in the world is it possible for any citizen 
to be sufficiently intelligent to know the facts about 
the thousand and one issues, local and State as 
well as national, in which he is expected to take 
an Interest? The mere suggestion is absurd. As 
I see It the solution of the problem does not lie 
In the endeavor to lead the ordinary citizen to be- 
lieve that It is his duty to become familiar with 
the facts, but In the endeavor to lead him to appre- 
ciate that It Is his duty to lend his support to the 
facts, regardless of what the status of those who 
present them may be. If we encourage the man 
who knows the facts to come forward when an 
Issue Is to be decided, and assure him a square 
deal when he does, the vigilance problem will be 
solved. 

To summarize my theory In a nutshell. Its char- 
acteristic feature Is that leadership in thought 
shall be centered not In selected Individuals as 
heretofore, but In those persons who are most fa- 
miliar with the merits of the Individual issues as 
they arise, so that Instead of being In any sense 
fixed. It will be altogether a shifting affair. Thus, 
it will shift indiscriminately with the Issue to an A, 
a B, a C, a D, or an E, as the case may be, the 
E's including the private citizens. As for A, he 

115 



THE people's government 

will remain the leader in action in that he will 
retain the same right as formerly to be the chief 
in command. He will, however, be no longer 
free to command as his moods may strike him ; for 
his orders will have to be based on the best ideas 
from whatever source they may happen to be de- 
rived. 

Under the traditional system, then, the em- 
ployee of lower rank is expected to be obedient 
to the commands of his official superior even when 
he regards them as dishonest or irrational. But 
what happens if he refuses to follow the leader 
to this extent, and instead makes it a rule to stand 
pat on his own knowledge when he believes him- 
self to be in the right? Why he simply creates 
a disturbance for which the traditional system has 
no satisfactory remedy to offer, and which under 
it can only be brought to an end in one of three un- 
satisfactory ways, while with the plan that I shall 
propose the opposition manifested by the subor- 
dinate who beheved himself to be in the right 
would be amicably settled without any disturbance 
to the discipline whatever. 

As for the three remedies with the existing sys- 
tem, the first lies in the surrender of the rebellious 
subordinate by becoming a part of the machine; 
and this is the manner in which the problem is or- 

ii6 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

dinarlly solved. Thus, the average individual 
who starts out in life with high ideals has not the 
fortitude to stand by his convictions when he finds 
the current against him, so that after a more or 
less prolonged attempt to be true to himself, he 
begins to follow the lines of least resistance and 
accommodate himself to the ways of the world. 
But in those exceptional instances in which he has 
the stamina, it is only a question of time when 
the conflict will result in one of the other two al- 
ternatives. That Is, the end of the conflict can 
then only be brought about by the ousting of the 
man by the machine or the breaking of the machine 
by the man. As the strength of the machine is 
naturally so vastly greater than that of the man, 
the outcome in the vast majoriy of instances speaks 
for itself. 

In order that the man may succeed In breaking 
the machine. It is necessary for him to gain a fol- 
lowing; and occasionally the required support does 
actually materialize. But, if so, what purpose is 
served thereby? Is the change brought about 
fundamental? Not at all; for no change will be 
effected thereby except that the broken machine 
will be repaired or replaced by a new one based 
on the same model. As for Its repair, this may 
manifest itself in the shape of reforms instituted 

117 



THE people's government 

by the same coterie, or in a partial change in the 
personnel among those at or near the top ; while 
its replacement would mean the ousting of all the 
old leaders and the entrance of a new coterie, as 
when the representatives of a bad government club 
are replaced by those of a good government club. 
But the system would remain exactly the same even 
if the personnel of the new machine should hap- 
pen to be on a great deal higher plane, because 
those higher up would still have the authority to 
think for those lower down, so that the Golden 
Rule would still be suspended. Nor will a funda- 
mental change be effected until the latter is ac- 
cepted as the basis of action. 

In respect to the acceptance of the Golden Rule 
as a basis In the conduct of public affairs, it would 
be a mistake to regard this as a mystical notion. 
In truth, the whole conception Is contained in the 
idea of what might be called reciprocal supervi- 
sion, which Is founded on the notion that just as 
it is the duty of B to supervise the actions of C, 
so it Is the duty of C to supervise those of B. 
For If B tells C that he wants a particular thing 
done In a way that the latter knows to be not the 
best way, and C has the means of obtaining the 
authority to do it in the manner In which he sug- 

Ii8 



RATIONAL VERSUS IRRATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

gests, in opposition to the wishes of B, provided 
his facts are found to be as alleged, then naturally 
the system of supervision will be reciprocal in its 
nature. 



119 



CHAPTER VI 

RATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND RECIPROCAL 
SUPERVISION 

As for reciprocal supervision, the procedure 
in practice would be very simple. Briefly, if B 
should command C to do what the latter would 
regard as irrational, it would be the duty of C to 
call B's attention to the alleged mistake and ask 
for a change in his decision. B would then be at 
liberty at his discretion either to accept or reject 
C's suggestion. If he should accept it, no con- 
troversy would arise; but if he should reject it, he 
would have the authority to insist upon C's obeying 
the command, and it would then be the duty of the 
latter to obey. Up to this point the supervision 
would be directed from above downward only, as 
of yore; but the reciprocating stroke would now 
follow. Thus, when C became aware that B had 
rejected his suggestion, it would be obligatory 
on his part to file a protest, accompanied by a 
statement of the facts, with the efficiency court. 

I20 



RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION 

The case would then be put on the calendar and 
In due time come up for a hearing. 

When the difference between the traditional and 
the proposed system is viewed in the light of its 
final analysis, it will be found that it does not lie 
in any direct change in the official powers of the 
boss, as he would have the same authority to com- 
mand the subordinate under the new plan as under 
the old, but simply in the fact that he would be 
placed in a position in which he would be obliged 
to defend his decisions before an impartial tribunal 
upon the request of a subordinate who claimed 
that they were contrary to proof. But would any 
sane individual In a position of trust be silly enough 
to render decisions that he could not defend with- 
out denying the vahdity of the evidence of the 
senses or of the rules of simple arithmetic, if he 
knew that In due course he would be called upon 
to defend them in public? Of course he would 
not; and the result would be that official power 
would cease to unbalance the minds of Its Incum- 
bents. Bind a giant hand and foot, as the subor- 
dinate from time Immemorial has been bound, and 
a pygmy can make a sorry sight of him. But If 
the giant should be freed of his fetters, Is It con- 
ceivable that the pygmy would dare to strike him ? 

In this Instance the giant Is represented by the 

121 



THE people's government 

sum total of human experiences, and the pygmy 
by the individual who is authorized by society to 
pass judgment upon the value of those experiences 
in the light of his own personal views, passions, 
and interests. Now, when our C takes issue with 
a decision of our B on the score that it is contrary 
to demonstrable proof, and the latter refuses to be 
guided by the former's contentions, we have not 
a case in which the individual B takes exception 
to the views of the individual C, but we have one 
in which the individual B demands that his own 
personal judgment shall be given the precedence 
over the judgment based upon the sum total of 
the experiences of all the workers in the field from 
the beginning of time. And the pygmy is thus 
emboldened to defy the giant under the tradi- 
tional system because he knows that heretofore 
it has been the custom of society to lend its sup- 
port to an official of higher as against one of 
lower rank, regardless of the facts. But the 
whole situation would be changed if society should 
so reverse its maxim as to place the facts above 
the man. 

Are the people entitled to a square deal from 
the bosses if they themselves are not willing to 
give a square deal to the subordinates who are 
desirous of doing their duty toward them? By 

122 



RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION 

no means. Consequently, if the people wish the 
bosses to do their duty they themselves must do 
their own by assuring justice to honest subordi- 
nates, which under our conditions can only be 
made possible by giving them the right to appeal 
from the decisions of bosses of any rank to some 
sort of a tribunal outside of Line I. Then if a 
controversy should arise between a boss and a 
subordinate, the lies of a boss of lower rank could 
be no longer reinforced by the endorsement of a 
boss of higher rank, because the latter would no 
longer have any jurisdiction in the matter. As a 
result the former would be thrown on his own re- 
sources to fight out the issue with his subordinate 
strictly on its merits. And, as I have mentioned, 
if the people should afford the honest subordinates 
protection against the machinations of dishonest 
bosses no further vigilance would be required to 
keep the bosses straight. It would then only be 
incumbent upon us to see that the outside entity 
was so constituted that it could not fall a prey to 
the domination of the bosses. But in this re- 
spect the working plan that I shall propose in the 
next chapter seems to me to be all that could be 
desired. 

As for the status of A, this would not be in any 
way affected by the change insofar as his own 

123 



THE people's government 

legitimate duties were concerned. Indeed, the 
only effect from this standpoint would be the re- 
lief from the performance of a function that does 
not legitimately belong to him, and which very 
often he does not enjoy. If he should still have 
the power to appoint the department heads, then 
it would be his duty to make the best appointments 
in his power, or, at least, it would be in his interest 
to do so. But the moral responsibihty would end 
with the appointment. That is, if B should prove 
to be a fool or a knave, A should not be made to 
feel that his appointee's indefensible decisions re- 
flected on himself; for if he is then he will feel 
impelled to endorse them even when at heart he 
is not in sympathy with them. The fact is that, 
as a rule, the A's have sufficient duties on the 
legislative side to keep them busy, as was indi- 
cated in the opening pages; and they will do 
well enough if they perform these satisfactorily. 

As a result of the proposed arrangement, we 
should no longer have a condition under which 
the responsibility for the departmental manage- 
ment would be more or less divided at the top be- 
tween A and B ; but, instead, it would rest entirely 
on the shoulders of B. Then from this it would 
naturally follow in turn that B would be no longer 
accountable to A for his decisions and actions, as 

124 



RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION 

the functions of A in this respect would be trans- 
ferred to the efficiency court, before which the em- 
ployees from B to E, in case of a controversy, 
would meet as man to man. In this manner we 
should be creating a condition under which the 
lowest ranking employees would be assured the 
same degree of justice as those of the highest 
rank, and under which we should be maintaining 
in fact what heretofore has been maintained in 
theory only, namely, equality without regard to 
wealth or station. 

If an organization should be conducted on the 
principle that an E was entitled to meet a B as 
man to man before an impartial tribunal to decide 
upon questions of methods and devices, even if 
the former should be of very low and the latter 
of very high intellectual caliber, then the system 
of reciprocal supervision would be in force, as un- 
der these conditions the subordinates would ex- 
ercise a check upon the bosses as the latter have 
heretofore exercised and would still continue to 
exercise it upon them. But the factor of equality 
in the pressure requires further elucidation. 

Thus, under the traditional system an order 
Issued by a boss to a subordinate meets with no 
obstruction because the latter must obey, while a 
suggestion made by a subordinate to a boss may be 

125 



THE people's government 

acted upon or obstructed at the latter's discretion. 
With this arrangement the proposed plan would 
not interfere in such a way as to create any dis- 
turbance in discipline, because, as I have men- 
tioned, the subordinate would still be obliged to 
obey the commands of his boss, and the latter 
would still have the power to reject suggestions 
offered by the former until the matter had been 
adjudicated. Naturally, if such a system should 
be In vogue, a change would be effected not only 
in the official status of the subordinate, but also in 
the attitude of the boss, as a result of which the 
latter would wish to meet the former for a free 
interchange of views in order to find whether the 
differences between them could not be settled 
amicably. The attitude of the superior would be- 
come thus changed for the reason that he would 
be no longer in the position of an infallible, and 
therefore could not disregard facts of record with- 
out subjecting himself to ridicule when they were 
reviewed on appeal. 

As a result, the proposed efficiency court would 
serve to exert an influence on departmental man- 
agement similar to that exerted by the jury in the 
transactions of ordinary affairs outside of official 
circles, which is that of preventing unscrupulous 
persons who desire to be known as respectable 

126 



RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION 

from acting dishonestly by the mere reason of Its 
existence. That Is, If the boss knows that a sub- 
ordinate may obtain justice from others If he can- 
not obtain it from him, he will be unlikely to make 
resort to others necessary, because he will be serv- 
ing his own Interests best by being just himself. 
In fact, to a considerable extent at least, the order 
maintained In the conduct of private affairs may 
be attributed to the circumstance that private 
transactions are really conducted on the principle 
of reciprocal supervision, in that the courts exist 
solely for the purpose of compelling an alleged 
wrongdoer to defend his action upon the complaint 
of any one who claims that the wrong has been 
committed. 

As for the equality of the pressure from a 
mechanical point of view, an analysis will be re- 
quired to make this clear. 

Looking at the plan in Its most elementary 
form, C's appeal from a decision by B would no 
longer go up Line I to A; for an appeal of that 
nature is characterized by inequality In that A may 
join forces with B, while C must fight against 
both single handed. Consequently, if C Is to re- 
ceive fair play his appeal must be taken In a side 
direction to the apex of a triangle, where B would 
be obliged to meet him as man to man. Thus: 

127 



THE PEOPLE S GOVERNMENT 





EX. C ^ EFFlClENOr COURT 



Under the present system an appeal by E to C 
from a decision by D would be still more unequal, 
because A, B, and C could all join forces with D 
against E. But if E should have the authority 
to meet D at the apex of the triangle, A, B, and C 
would be out of the race, and we should again 
have a fair test of strength even with the poor 
and friendless man in the ring. 

In practice, however, the affair is not so simple, 
because complications arise from the factor that 
brings the question of fixing responsibility into 
play. Now, if E should have occasion to protest 
against an order that he had received from D, 
this would not necessarily indicate that D and E 
did not agree, as the order might have originated 
with one higher up, while D might be no more in 
sympathy with it than E. But if the act should 
reach the ears of outsiders and cause dissatisfac- 
tion among them, those higher up would try to 
throw the blame on D. Under the traditional 

128 



RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION 

system, which affords no protection to subordi- 
nates, it is wrong on the part of the people to 
allow those higher up to make a scapegoat of D, 
because he must either obey the order or run the 
risk of being discharged. But under the pro- 
posed system, which would afford him protection, 
he would be legitimately regarded as the culprit; 
for if his views should have accorded with those 
of E, it would have been his duty to protest against 
transmitting the order to him, thus fixing the re- 
sponsibility upon C. And if the order had 
originated with B against the better judgment of 
C, then it would have been C's duty to file a 
protest. In this way the problem of fixing re- 
sponsibility would be automatically solved; for 
if no one should be willing to assume it in the 
event of an unjustifiable command having been 
given to a subordinate, then there would be no 
one in the field to compel the latter to act upon 
it, and it would become ineffective by default. 

Now the change brought about by this arrange- 
ment would mean no less than the fact that while 
heretofore an order originating with A has been 
permitted to pass through the hands of B, C, and 
D to E, and to be carried into effect by the last 
without meeting with any genuine obstruction any- 
where along the line, because those who have at- 

129 



THE people's government 

tempted to protest against the machinations of 
the bosses have had no recognized status, the 
new plan would afford recognition to a subordinate 
of any rank who had good cause to protest and 
sufficient self-respect to refuse to become a party 
to a dishonest scheme. It is only that in the in- 
terest of discipline he would be obliged to obey the 
order for the time being; but the protest would 
free him of all blame. In theory this could be 
done under the present system ; but the contestant 
would not be assured a fair trial. 

Again, as for the pressure from below upwards 
being equal to that from above downwards, this 
will manifest itself most definitely in the fact that 
the appeal will assure the same attention to the 
suggestions of subordinates as to the commands 
of bosses. Briefly, while under existing circum- 
stances a command coming from A is permitted 
to pass through to E without obstruction, a sug- 
gestion coming from E is liable to obstruction 
from any of the bosses from D to A. That is, 
if it has been approved by D or C, it may still be 
rejected by B or A. Under the proposed plan 
this power of obstruction by any of the bosses 
would remain unchanged, with this difference, 
however, that the responsibility for such obstruc- 
tion in any individual instance would be automatic- 

130 



RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION 

ally fixed by the fact that It would have to be 
defended upon appeal by the obstructor. There- 
fore, aside from the question of delay, a sug- 
gestion by a subordinate would have the same 
value as an order by a boss; because, unless an 
obstructor should appear to oppose it, or, if ap- 
pearing, should fail to maintain his contention, it 
would in due course be carried into effect. It is 
only that if opposed it would not be acted upon 
until it had been approved on appeal, while the 
order of a boss would remain effective until it had 
been recalled on appeal. Naturally, if a sugges- 
tion offered by a subordinate should fail to meet 
with any response from a superior who had the 
power to act upon It, such power would not au- 
tomatically devolve upon the subordinate himself. 
But it is my idea that In the event of his being 
unable to obtain a response one way or the other 
within a reasonable time from an official In power, 
it would be his duty to bring the matter to the at- 
tention of the efficiency court, whose duty it would 
be to place it on the calendar and decide It on its 
merits. The object to be obtained by the plan 
will be that of giving the truth the right of way 
over official rank, and this It will be able to ac- 
complish provided the truth is perfectly clear. 
In the ultimate analysis, then, the appeal would 
131 



THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT 

resolve Itself Into a weapon of defense against 
voluntary waste; and if the plan should be prop- 
erly applied unnecessary waste could not fail to 
be reduced to a minimum, because all intelligent 
employees who were interested In their work 
would be continually on the alert to discover the 
best way of doing it. That there is nothing to 
prevent them from being on the alert for that 
purpose under the present system is true enough. 
But there would be this difference, that while now 
such labor Is frequently not only wasted, but re- 
warded with abuse and persecution besides, it 
would then not only be recognized as meritorious, 
but all discoveries of merit would be utilized as 
soon as their claims had been proved to be war- 
ranted by the facts, because no one would have 
the power to prevent such action. And I know 
of no greater incentive to exertion for persons of 
good caliber than the knowledge that it is not 
made in vain. 

While logically the pressure from above and 
below would be equal, a complication would 
nevertheless have to be looked for In the fact that 
the protection of the subordinate would be likely 
to cause a reaction which would have a tendency 
to go to the opposite extreme In producing a state 
of over-cautiousness on the part of the boss. If 

132 



RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION 

SO, there would be a tendency on his part to act 
upon suggestions that would not be worthy of 
such recognition. The question would then arise 
as to how we should be able to protect ourselves 
against a contingency of that nature. 

The solution of this problem, however, would 
ultimately be brought about upon the principle that 
water seeks its own level, and for the simple rea- 
son that there are more subordinates than bosses. 
Thus, let us say that a B has as his Immediate 
assistants two C's, whom we shall designate as 
C^ and O. Then let us assume that C^ makes 
a suggestion which affects the work of C^ as well 
as his own. The suggestion Is accepted by B, as 
a result of which O is ordered to act accordingly. 
However, on looking over the matter the latter 
finds that he cannot conscientiously obey the order 
and In consequence he files a protest. B then finds 
himself between two fires, so that ultimately the 
controversy will become one between the two sub- 
ordinates of the same rank. 

The problem will then resolve Itself Into that 
of finding a way of relieving B of the responsi- 
bility of deciding the Issue on his own Initiative; 
and this may be done by the adoption of a rule 
to the effect that all suggestions made to bosses 
by subordinates shall be referred to others for 

^33 



THE people's government 

investigation. This suggests the establishment 
of a bureau of research, the duties devolving upon 
which shall be those of separating the wheat from 
the chaff In the case of all suggestions, the opinion 
of the Investigators to serve as an Indication as to 
whether or not In any Individual Instance the sug- 
gestion should be accepted or rejected. The mem- 
bers of the bureau would have no power to act, 
their functions being merely advisory. But In 
most instances their advice would probably settle 
the controversy. In its makeup the bureau would 
not differ from a scientific department of any well 
managed organization. It is only that its con- 
clusions could not be overruled by arbitrary de- 
crees of the bosses. The latter would not be un- 
der any obligation to be guided by them; but If 
they should refuse to do so in individual in- 
stances, they would have to explain their reasons 
before the efficiency court. 

The elimination of waste would mean a de- 
crease in taxes and in the cost of living, and an 
increase in wages, dividends, and the per capita 
wealth. But what is all this as compared to the 
moral revolution that would take place in the con- 
duct of public and corporate affairs if the bosses 
should no longer have the power to give to their 
will the right of way over the reason? This 

134 



RECIPROCAL SUPERVISION 

question opens a vista to my mind that appears 
too good to be true. But still, after years of 
reflection, I am unable to see why the scheme can- 
not be made to work as planned. The only thing 
that could serve to cause It to prove a myth would 
be the Impossibility of keeping the departmental 
court of appeals from being controlled by the 
bosses. But even this difliculty may be readily 
overcome as the reader will see for himself when 
he Is familiar with the working plan, which will 
now be discussed. 



^3S 



CHAPTER VII 

THE EFFICIENCY COURT AND THE BOSSES: 
A PRACTICAL WORKING PROPOSITION 

As the plan had its inception in the idea that 
questions of fact arising in the pubhc service shall 
be decided on a basis of facts, instead of as here- 
tofore by bosses who have had the power to de- 
cide them contrary to the facts if they so desired, 
it is evident that the proposed doctrine cannot be 
carried into effect unless some sort of provision 
is made whereby the decisions of the bosses on 
questions of fact shall become subject to revision 
by a tribunal whose members are neither bosses 
themselves nor subject to the domination of 
bosses. And in the ultimate analysis the prob- 
lem resolves itself into one of finding a rational 
way of enabling the people themselves to pass 
upon the facts if subordinates find occasion to take 
exception to rulings by the bosses when questions 
of common honesty are at stake. That this 
proposition will not be publicly opposed by respect- 
able persons on theoretical grounds is clear 

136 



THE EFFICIENCY COURT 

enough. Consequently, whatever objections may 
arise can only be based on practical considerations, 
and it is to these that I shall now call the attention 
of the reader. 

As it stands, then, the proposition really repre- 
sents a plea in favor of the referendum. How- 
ever, as the referendum in the ordinary sense is 
not only open to criticism when applied to ques- 
tions of fact, but could not even be suggested for 
that purpose without overstepping the limits of 
sanity, the solution will lie in maintaining its spirit 
without the form. This may be done by estab- 
lishing a rational referendum, the characteristic 
feature of which would be that of obtaining the 
expression of the will of the whole people through 
the channel of a wieldy number, that is, through 
the channel of a tribunal of the people sufficiently 
limited in numbers to be capable of acting in- 
telligently on questions of fact. In spirit this is 
what the jury implies. It is only that expediency 
would demand a change in form to suit the re- 
quirements of the occasion. In brief, the idea 
I have in mind is that of embodying within a small 
sphere the will of all the respectable members of 
the community in the same way in which the al- 
kaloid of a field of vegetable material may be 
brought within the confines of a small vial. And 

137 



THE people's government 

I shall show how this principle may be carried to 
the extent of embodying the universal will in a 
single individual, who, to preserve the nomen- 
clature, might be termed the referee. There is, 
however, but one condition under which the people 
could be assured that the individual selected to 
represent the universal will would do so not 
merely in theory, but in fact; and this would lie 
in placing him technically in a position in which 
he would not have the power to be unfaithful 
to them even if he should be disposed to be 
dishonest. 

What will naturally strike the reader here is 
the notion that the individual selected to represent 
the whole people in the settlement of disputes 
between bosses and subordinates would in this way 
become endowed with powers similar to those now 
enjoyed by the bosses, so that the change would 
serve to accomplish nothing beyond transferring 
the power from one person to another. Upon 
analysis, however, it will be found that this is not 
true in fact, because even when we leave aside the 
safeguards to be mentioned the duties devolving 
upon this person would serve to differentiate him 
from an ordinary boss. For while apparently 
his position would be analogous to that of A on 
Line I of our figure, there would be among others 

138 



THE EFFICIENCY COURT 

this essential difference between the two positions, 
that the specific duties of the referee would be 
Hmlted to settling disputes between bosses and 
subordinates, a service which A Is not expected to 
perform except on rare occasions. 

Now as it so happens that with A work of this 
nature is a purely incidental affair, it naturally 
follows that the degree of conscientiousness he 
manifests in settling such disputes constitutes but 
one of many factors in judging of the value of 
his services as a whole. And even if he should be 
known to show partiality here, the matter would 
be generally overlooked on the ground that no 
one can be expected to be perfect. If, however, 
an Individual should be employed to perform this 
service only, and with the distinct understanding 
that all controversies must be decided by him on 
their merits, then favoritism would constitute a 
breach of trust, so that what could be regarded as 
a mere Incident with A would be actual corruption 
if manifested by the referee. 

The specific duty devolving upon the referee, 
then, would be merely equivalent to that of tell- 
ing the truth when the truth was known; and if 
no dependence could be placed on his veracity his 
services would have to be regarded as worthless, 
whatever his qualifications in general might be. 

139 



THE people's government 

For this reason success would appear to be con- 
tingent upon the employment of truthful persons 
to act in that capacity. However, if this should 
be true, then the whole scheme would be dissipated 
into thin air, because it would be simply a return 
to the old idea that an honest government was 
dependent upon honest rulers. But, fortunately, 
this is not the case. In fact, the whole philosophy 
of the scheme centers in the Idea that the veracity 
must be Inherent not in the incumbent of the office, 
but in the office itself by reason of Its strategic 
position, so that the moral qualifications of the 
referee would be at least for the most part a 
matter of Indifference. Thus, just as we have be- 
come accustomed to the notion that the salary 
goes with the office even If Its Incumbent Is an Im- 
becile, so we must become accustomed to the no- 
tion that the truth goes with the office even if Its 
incumbent Is a liar. 

That this Is not a mere flight of fancy will be 
appreciated when it is borne In mind that the posi- 
tion of the judge is of that nature; the truth com- 
ing from the members of the judiciary being in- 
herent not In the men, who do not differ from 
other human beings, but in the bench, which oc- 
cupies a strategic position that renders self-evi- 
dent untruthfulness Impossible. Naturally, if a 

140 



THE EFFICIENCY COURT 

judge had the inclination to do so, there would be 
nothing to prevent him, for example, from de- 
livering a charge to the jury that would misrep- 
resent the statements that had been made by the 
witnesses and that would be altogether contrary 
to the stenographer's records. But no judge 
would think of doing this unless he had suddenly 
gone Insane. It Is not only that he would make 
a fool of himself if he did, but he could serve no 
purpose by doing so, because the decision of the 
jury would be annulled and a new trial granted 
on an appeal. The safeguards to be mentioned 
would place the referee In a similar position 
doubly secured, and for the simple reason that 
the appeal, which under our judiciary system is a 
very expensive affair, would here not only be 
granted free of charge, but would be compulsory 
as well. That Is, a subordinate who had filed a 
protest with the referee would not be Immune 
from blame If the latter should decide the Issue 
contrary to demonstrable proof unless he appealed 
from that decision to the next higher tribunal, 
which would be composed of the parties by whom 
the referee was delegated to act, and to whom he 
would be obliged to give an account of his actions. 
The practicability of the plan would of course 
be contingent upon the possibility of devising a 

141 



THE people's government 

scheme whereby the department chiefs and sub- 
ordinates from B to E could reach the people by 
following a line over the head of the referee out- 
side of the political sphere, in order that he might 
have more to gain than to lose by refusing to sub- 
ject himself to the domination of the party bosses. 
In my opinion, this could be done by creating a 
link between the departments and the whole peo- 
ple In the form of a strictly non-partisan, public 
spirited organization whose sole purpose would 
be that of assuring a square deal to all employees 
who protested against doing what they knew to be 
wrong in obedience to the commands of public 
servants higher up. Then if the referee should 
be the personal representative of such an organiza- 
tion, it Is evident that the probability of his form- 
ing an alliance with the party bosses would be 
practically nil, not only because such action would 
be so likely to be discovered, but also, and more 
particularly, because an Irrational decision on his 
part could not fail to be reversed on appeal to 
the higher authority on the non-partisan line, so 
that he could not have his own way if he would. 
As for the makeup of the organization, it Is not 
Improbable that many different schemes would 
have to be tried before a genuinely satisfactory 
one had been devised, although I have a sugges- 

142 



THE EFFICIENCY COURT 

tlon to offer In the form of a method which It 
seems to me would work. The entity I have in 
mind would be composed of a combination of as- 
sociations that have neither partisan nor personal 
purposes In view, but which nevertheless are in- 
herently pubhc spirited to the extent of being in- 
directly interested in the cause of good govern- 
ment. Of the innumerable forms of associations 
in existence, however, I can think of three only 
that would come within this classification, namely, 
the bar associations, the chambers of commerce, 
and the scientific societies. As we could no more 
conceive that an organization of this nature would 
cast a majority vote on partisan lines in favor of 
the wrong side of a non-debatable question than 
we could conceive of an apple faUing upwards in- 
stead of downwards, it follows that a referendum 
to it on a question of common honesty would an- 
swer the purpose of a general referendum as fully 
as if the issue should be put before the whole peo- 
ple, or, for that matter, before the whole civihzed 
world. Again it is equally evident that its vote 
would be more intelligent, if for no reason other 
than that the smaller number would enable the 
voters to get so much closer to the facts. 

But if my contention should be logical to this 
extent, would it not be equally logical to contend 

143 



THE people's government 

that a second step in the concentration of the uni- 
versal will would be afforded if a non-debatable 
question should be submitted to a committee of 
such an assembly? Therefore, if there should 
be five societies in a union, and each should ap- 
point a single member only, would not this com- 
mittee of five, which would be analogous to a 
jury, represent the will of the whole people as 
fully as if the will of all should be expressed by 
means of a general referendum? 

Again, following the same line of thought, is it 
not equally evident that the same thing could be 
accomplished if the committee should appoint a 
single individual to take the testimony at the out- 
set in any given instance ? And that his decisions 
would be rational is clear from the fact that no 
person whose activities should be conducted in 
the limehght to that extent would be bold enough 
to decide any issue in defiance of the evidence of 
the senses or of the rules of simple arithmetic, like 
a boss who is empowered to do so. Conse- 
quently, we should have in the creation of the 
office of referee a step which would lead to a 
technical position in which the universal will could 
be made to find expression through the decisions 
of a single individual as well as it could by means 
of a general referendum. 

144 



THE EFFICIENCY COURT 

As for the mechanism of the scheme In Its en- 
tirety, the referee would represent the court of 
first resort to which the subordinate would appeal 
from an irrational decision on the part of his boss. 
And if he should regard the decision of the 
referee as equally irrational, it would be not only 
his privilege, but his duty, to appeal from it to 
the committee, thence to the organization, and 
finally to the people. But as lies are noted for 
their short legs, is it conceivable that they could 
ever succeed in traveling that distance? We can- 
not prevent liars from lying; but we can build a 
machine on the principle that a lie dropped into 
it at one end will come out the truth at the other. 

In regard to the makeup of the organization 
that I have suggested. It might at first appear to 
be open to the criticism of being enlisted on the 
side of capitalism, because the labor interests do 
not seem to be represented. In fact, however, 
such a conception would be as delusive as it could 
possibly be, because the object of the plan is not 
legislative, but protective. For what class is to 
be taken under Its wing except that which is com- 
posed of the under dogs who are desirous of 
being true to their consciences when those higher 
up are desirous of using them as tools? The 
truth is that the character of the entity will be 

145 



THE people's government 

Immaterial so long as it is capable of accomplish- 
ing this purpose. It is simply that like our courts 
it will be intended to afford redress to all who 
have good reason to seek it. And even if our 
courts should be as imperfect as many who know 
them best believe them to be, does not the fact 
remain nevertheless that half-a-loaf is better than 
none? 

The suggested plan would represent a new 
heteronomic force in the conduct of public affairs, 
and a force, moreover, which would be analogous 
to a catalytic agent In that, at least to a consider- 
able extent, If not entirely, the efficiency court 
would serve to bring about the contemplated 
change in the relationship between boss and sub- 
ordinate by the mere reason of Its presence, so 
that it would rarely if ever be called upon to try 
a case. As for its essential feature, this would 
not He in the form of the efficiency court, but In 
the element that would distinguish It from the 
ordinary judiciary, namely. In that the Issues sub- 
ject to trial before It would be limited to strictly 
non-debatable propositions, because the subor- 
dinate would have no authority to protest unless 
he could prove that his boss had taken an irra- 
tional stand, whether In Issuing a command or 
in refusing to accept a suggestion. But as the 

146 



THE EFFICIENCY COURT 

boss could not afford to have publicity given to a 
decision of his own that he could not possibly de- 
fend before an impartial tribunal, it would appear 
that the protest submitted to him by the subor- 
dinate would suffice to cause him to reverse his 
own decision, and especially if he had been ad- 
vised to that effect by investigators who had been 
delegated to study the facts. 

Naturally, a psychological revolution of this 
nature could not be expected to be effected in a 
day, so that before any degree of perfection 
would be reached we should probably be obliged 
to cope with a transitional stage of longer or 
shorter duration. However, that sooner or later 
the wheels will be set in motion appears to me 
to admit of no doubt; because, in spite of what I 
may have said on previous pages by way of 
badinage, I have sufficient confidence in humanity 
to believe that the vast majority of people are 
born with a sense of justice that impels them to 
desire that the truth shall prevail when it Is clear. 
If I should be mistaken In this It could only be 
because society will ultimately take the stand that 
when the boss Is a fool or a knave It shall be the 
duty of his subordinates to become fools or 
knaves as well. Perhaps It will, for who can 
tell; but I prefer to think the other way. 

147 



At the outset the vast majority of the subordi- 
nates, for one reason or another, would no doubt 
be disinclined to avail themselves of the privileges 
and opportunities thus placed at their disposal. 
But after the novelty had had time to wear off, a 
change in attitude would be likely to take place. 
Fortunately, however, the nature of the plan is 
such that success would not be contingent upon 
the attitude of the majority, because the facts 
would have the right of way even if they could 
find but a single sponsor. Nor would it even be 
necessary for the sponsor to be a public employee; 
for any citizen interested in the cause of good 
government would be authorized to take the mat- 
ter in hand after he had become cognizant of the 
facts. As it is never safe to use philosophical 
terms without an adequate explanation for fear 
of being misunderstood, I am wary about using 
the term " individual sovereignty " in the closing 
paragraph of this book. But if we can conceive 
of the possibility of conferring upon a private citi- 
zen the authority to have a public abuse corrected 
after it has been called to his attention, then it 
would naturally follow that within rational limits 
at least the notion of individual sovereignty was 
not altogether chimerical. 



148 



